(MintPress)—Vermont became the third state on Thursday to pass a resolution calling on Congress to amend the constitution and overturn the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United case, which opened the door for labor unions’ and corporations’ rights to unlimited campaign spending, highlighting a growing trend among citizens concerned over a possible oligarchic society.
The Vermont measure passed in the Senate with a 26-3 show of bipartisan support, echoed by the House, which approved it Thursday by a margin of 92-40. Vermont now joins the ranks of Hawaii and New Mexico, where similar resolutions have been passed, largely due to grassroots efforts targeted at rallying citizens on both sides of the aisle concerned with out-of-control campaign spending.
Resolutions calling for the constitutional amendment have been introduced in 22 states and have gained approval from the state senate in Alaska and Iowa. A similar measure was approved in March by California’s General Assembly, a reflection of the growing grassroots campaign in America to overturn the Citizens United ruling.
A movement from the ground up
Vermont has been a hotbed of the anti-Citizens United movement. Following in the footsteps of Hawaii and New Mexico, the well-organized grassroots campaign has mobilized citizens at every level.
Sixty-six towns in Vermont have passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass the Saving American Democracy Amendment, introduced in February by Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. The bill has yet to make it to a committee. In an issue that affects the entire nation, small Vermont city councils have also stepped up to the plate to voice their opinions — and it’s working. With support from the ground up, state legislators were able to see tangible proof that constituents have had enough.
The organization Public Citizen has played a key role in grassroots efforts, organizing rallies and petitions and offering guidance for those interested in organizing movements within their own communities. The group’s online ‘action toolkit’ offers fact sheets, petitions and tips on organizing media events.
It’s the growing support of constituents that has led to victories in the three states. In 2011, a similar resolution failed to make headway in New Mexico. Just one year later, it saw bipartisan support. In a Huffington Post story, New Mexico State Rep. Mimi Stewart said legislatures had to listen to the voices of those involved in the grassroots movement.
Many of those voices speaking out are concerned with the growing influence of Super Political Action Committees (PACs), which have flooded the airwaves with partisan campaign commercials. Following the 2010 court decisions, the United States saw unprecedented levels of independent groups’ campaign spending. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 84 groups in 2010 spent $84 million on advertising.
As of April 23, 434 Super PACs in the 2012 cycle had reported $201 million in expenditures, most of which endorsed either a conservative or liberal agenda. Restore Our Future, a PAC that endorses Romney, had expenditures of $41 million, following by Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich group with $16 million in spending.
That has many concerned about the future of fair democratic elections. With corporations and lobby groups, including unions, given a free ticket for unlimited campaign financing, the likelihood of a third-party having a chance in elections is minimized. It also gives voice to a small majority of American groups, which had prompted a movement throughout the nation to reverse the Citizens United decision through a constitutional amendment.
History of Citizens United
In the 5-4 Citizens United ruling, the court identified corporations as people, allowing unions and organizations to express their first amendment freedom of speech through campaign-related spending. It opened the doors for the dominance of the PACs in the political advertising world.
At the heart of the Supreme Court case was a documentary-style film, Hillary: The Movie, that aired in the lead-up to the 2008 primary elections. The film, critical of the then-presidential candidate, was shown in movie theatres across the nation and distributed in DVD form.
Citizens United, nonprofit corporation and creator of the film, sought an injunction with a U.S. District Court to advertise its ‘on-demand’ form of the video by way of broadcast — a cost it would pay through its general treasury funds, previously off limits for campaign spending.
Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, corporations and unions were prohibited from using general treasury funds for “electioneering communications” speech that made a political statement regarding a candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. The district court denied the injunction and Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was overturned in favor of the corporation.
The Supreme Court looked primarily at whether or not the precedent case, Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, was constitutional. In the 1990 decision, the court ruled that Michigan’s campaign finance act did not violate the first amendment by not allowing corporations to use corporate treasury funds for “independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate in elections for state office,” on the grounds that such spending could lead to corruption. In essence, the court ruled that, in order to protect the political system from corruption through tremendous campaign spending, the first amendment rights of corporations could be limited.
Justice Scalia, a dissenting voice in that argument, said the decision limited First Amendment rights in what he saw as a dangerous precedent.
“In permitting Michigan to make private corporations the first object of this Orwellian announcement, the Court today endorses the principle that too much speech is an evil that the democratic majority can proscribe,” Scalia stated.” I dissent because that principle is contrary to our case law and incompatible with the absolutely central truth of the First Amendment: that government cannot be trusted to assure, through censorship, the ‘fairness’ of political debate.”
Granting corporations citizen status
When Citizens United reversed the Austin vs. Chamber of Commerce precedent, it opened the door to the argument that corporations and unions, which collect donations from individuals, should not be limited in their free speech rights.
Months after the Citizens United case, SpeechNow.org, a pro-First Amendment lobby group, challenged the FEC on the grounds that its limit on contributions from individuals violated the First Amendment. The trial, heard in the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. found that corporations could no longer be capped in their campaign spending.
A March 2010 article in the New York Times cited Chief Judge Sentelle saying that arguments to limit SpeechNow.org’s speech on the grounds of ‘preferential access for donors’ “plainly have no merit after Citizens United.”
Stephen M. Hoersting, who argued on the side of SpeechNow.org, issued a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in which he commended the court for recognizing the rights of people to contribute to a political side.
“The court affirmed that groups of passionate individuals, like billionaires — and corporations and unions after Citizens United — have the right to spend without limit to independently advocate for or against federal candidates,” Hoersting said.