In Ohio, the People Push Back on Fracking

Photo by Josh Lopez.

Joshua Kahn Russell is an organizer with 350.org.

Last week nearly 1,000 people took over the Ohio Statehouse. Joined by others from neighboring states, they came together to protest the destructive gas drilling method called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." After rallying and marching to the Capitol building, hundreds poured in—without a permit—to hold a "People's Assembly" to decide how they, the people, could end the practice in their state.

Jamie Frederick was one of them. She had been told by doctors that it was safe to drink her well water, despite the gas wells surrounding her home. When she got sick, she was told to drink more water. She later discovered it was contaminated with chemicals used in the fracking process. As a result, she has lost her gall bladder and can't risk having children because of fatal health risks and potential birth defects.

"If there had been solar panels and wind turbines surrounding my home instead of gas wells, I never would have gotten sick, and I would be called ‘Mom’,” she told the crowd. These days, she said, her mouth bleeds and it's difficult to talk: “I am losing my voice more all the time. But I seem to have found it today.”

As the Assembly convened, the rotunda, filled to capacity, thundered with stomping, clapping, and chanting that was hushed when families shared experiences of being devastated by the side effects of fracking, as Frederick was. Some had been invited to testify at the Statehouse in the past, only to find empty rooms and legislators who, they felt, did not respect their concerns.

urgent brief action needed today

National Call-in Day for Move To Amend on June 29 note: the young woman answering the phone knows all about this, you simply need to let her know that we are requesting Move to Amend have a presence at these hearings. She will ask for your zip code. The Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), will be holding hearings on July 17, 2012, to examine the three proposed constitutional amendments currently introduced in the Senate, which address Citizens United v. FEC. Invitations will be issued to the senators who have introduced amendments and to a panel of advocates/experts, who will testify to: The impact of Citizen's United v. FEC The rise of SUPER PACs The impact of unlimited corporate spending on individual candidates Move To Amend (MTA) has not been invited to participate yet. We have been in touch with Senator Durbin, who has complete discretion over who to invite, and MTA members in the eleven states of the individual committee members have already been in contact with their senators in pursuit of an invitation. We are now calling on all of our members to contact Senator Durbin -- please make a quick call tomorrow: (202) 224-2152. Click here for call in details and a script. Question: Why should we care about being invited to this hearing, despite the fact that our amendment has no Senate sponsor yet? Answer: We don’t expect that the Senate will actually pass an amendment any time soon, but it is important that our viewpoint be heard inside the beltway. Our movement is growing, our demands are clear. When and if Congress begins to move, it is imperative they know what the real solution is and that there is a broad movement supporting it. We must make clear to them that the issue goes beyond Citizens United. The amendment must address corporate personhood and money as speech -- nothing short of that will do. Tomorrow, June 29, is National Call-in Day for MTA! Please call Senator Durbin’s office and express your desire that Move To Amend be invited to the July 17 hearing. Find a short script, talking points, and the phone number here. We’re hoping to raise a polite and non-violent ruckus by generating thousands of calls, and we’re counting on you to raise your voice tomorrow. It will take no more than five minutes of your time, so please add this event to your schedule.

US Water Policy Still All Wet

Shiney Varghese - Foreign Policy in Focus World News Report, June 28, 2012

“Although debates at the UN and among civil society have moved toward the recognition of water as a basic human right, the United States still lags behind.”

Growing conflicts over who owns water and how to manage it are emerging all over the world. Although debates at the UN and among civil society have moved toward the recognition of water as a basic human right, the United States still lags behind. Washington has instead largely supported private-sector approaches that will likely exacerbate conflicts over water resources. What is perhaps new is that the U.S. intelligence community is also looking at water as a potential national security concern.

A report led by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Global Water Security attempts to answer the question, “How will water problems (shortages, poor water quality, or floods) impact U.S. national security interests over the next 30 years.” The report focuses on trans-boundary water issues in seven river basins associated with countries that are identified as strategically important for U.S. security: Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Jordan, Mekong, Brahmaputra, Indus, and Amu Darya. Except for the Nile, these rivers are all in Asia, and together these basins are home to over 1.5 billion people. The national intelligence community judged “that these examples are sufficient to illustrate the intersections between water challenges and US national security.”According to the DIA assessment, “water problems—when combined with poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—contribute to social disruptions that can result in state failure.” It predicts that "as water shortages become more acute … water in shared basins will increasingly be used as leverage" for political purposes. The assessment expects that the water shortages and pollution will harm the performance of important U.S. trading partners and identifies agriculture and food security as the most important challenges.

Isn't Obamacare about Health Insurors and the Supreme Court support of their needs?

Robert Reich was off a bit, the decision went 5-4.

Predictions are always hazardous when it comes to the economy, the weather, and the Supreme Court. I won’t get near the first two right now, but I’ll hazard a guess on what the Court is likely to decide tomorrow: It will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) by a vote of 6 to 3.

Three reasons for my confidence:

First, Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle. The 5-4 decision in Citizen’s United, for example, looked to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome, with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Or consider the Court’s notorious decision in Bush v. Gore.

The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government: As Alexander Hamilton once noted, the Court has neither the purse (it can’t threaten to withhold funding from the other branches) or the sword (it can’t threaten police or military action). It has only the public’s trust in the Court’s own integrity and the logic of its decisions — both of which the public is now doubting, according to polls. As Chief Justice, Roberts has a particular responsibility to regain the public’s trust. Another 5-4 decision overturning a piece of legislation as important as Obamacare would further erode that trust.

It doesn’t matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court’s impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?



Second, Roberts can draw on a decision by a Republican-appointed and highly-respected conservative jurist, Judge Laurence Silberman, who found Obamacare to be constitutional when the issue came to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The judge’s logic was lucid and impeccable — so much so that Roberts will try to lure Justice Anthony Kennedy with it, to join Roberts and the four liberal justices, so that rather than another 5-4 split (this time on the side of the Democrats), the vote will be 6 to 3.

Third and finally, Roberts (and Kennedy) can find adequate Supreme Court precedent for the view that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress and the President the power to regulate health care — given that heath-care coverage (or lack of coverage) in one state so obviously affects other states; that the market for health insurance is already national in many respects; and that other national laws governing insurance (Social Security and Medicare, for example) require virtually everyone to pay (in these cases, through mandatory contributions to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds). 

He was close. My takeaway from this is that there is mounting pressure to seem as though the Supremes are supporting the healthcare coverage; they are not. They are following their second vote on Citizens United, clearly strongly supporting fascism. This vote is not about supporting Obama, me thinks. I see it in alignment with other consistent acts of legislation from the Judiciary. This one supports the wealthy corporate interests of the health insurors. My bill went up another $35 a month with a ludicrous letter from the provider, announcing "Medical Loss Ratio"--and let me be clear this is NON health care insurance. I pay just under $300 month for no preventive care, no dental, no eye care, nothing--but catastrophic coverage. Should I be hospitalized the insurance kicks in AFTER I pay the first $10,000. Like that's just sitting in the bank...and I am not complaining when I see what my neighbors and friends are experiencing. It is deplorable, inexcusable, that a nation that pays $11 billion to elect a president does not provide for the basic human rights of its people.  

David Cobb interview: A Declaration to Amend

[AR] Upcoming Broadcast: David Cobb – A Declaration to Amend (lecture) To: All Stations/Program Directors Fr: David Barsamian/via Distribution Dt: June 27, 2012 Re: Alternative Radio: Reversing Citizens United David Cobb – A Declaration to Amend (lecture) Concerned about the influence of money in politics? You should be. Politics looks more and more like an auction with seats going to the candidate who raises the most money. The so-called level playing field is now heavily tilted toward the wealthy. Democracy is fast becoming a cashocracy ruled by plutocrats who control the purse strings. The January 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United decision–money equals free speech– has opened the proverbial floodgates. The ruling gave a green light to them that’s got to give as many greenbacks as they want to buy elections. Corporations and rich fat cats can now give unlimited amounts of money funneled through super PACs to the politician of their choice and much of it is secret. A concerted grassroots effort, Move to Amend, is being made to pass a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United. David Cobb, a lawyer and activist, was the Green Party presidential candidate in 2004. He is a leading voice in the Move to Amend the Constitution to repeal corporate rights. Feed Date & Time: Tuesday, July 3, 1400-1459ET Terms: Free of Charge to All Stations   Contact Phone: (303) 473-0972 Email: info@alternativeradio.org Web: http://www.alternativeradio.org

Supreme Court rules on AZ SB 1070

On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down three of four provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070 that the U.S. government challenged on grounds that federal law preempts state law.

Struck Down
The sections of the law that were struck are:

Section 3 of SB 1070, which created a misdemeanor criminal offense for “willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document.” The Court ruled that, with respect to alien registration, Congress intended to preclude states from enacting or enforcing their own complementary or auxiliary regulations. (6-2, with Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting. Justice Kagan had recused herself from this case.)

Section 5(C) of SB 1070, which created a state misdemeanor criminal offense for an “unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor.” The Court ruled that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided a comprehensive framework for regulating employment by immigrants not authorized to work. IRCA did not impose criminal penalties on unauthorized immigrants seeking work or engaging in work, and the imposition of such penalties by Arizona is thus preempted by federal law. (5-3, with Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissenting.)

Section 6 of Arizona SB 1070, which gave state officers authority to arrest, without a warrant, any person the officer had “probable cause” to believe that the person “had committed any public offense that makes [that person] removable” from the U.S. The Court ruled that this section would give state officers greater authority to arrest noncitizens than authority given by Congress to trained federal immigration officers. “Congress has put in place a system in which state officers may not make warrantless arrests of aliens based on possible removability except in specific, limited circumstances,” the Court ruled, and therefore this provision is preempted. (5-3, with Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissenting.)

Allowed to Stand, For Now
The provision that the Court did not strike down was section 2(B) of SB 1070, known as the “Papers Please” or “Show Me Your Papers” provision. This provision requires Arizona law enforcement officers to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of persons they stop, detain, or arrest if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present. It also requires authorities to determine the immigration status of anyone who is arrested before the person is released. The chief concern about this provision is that it will lead to racial profiling; that Latinos will be stopped, detained, or arrested on some pretext, so that an officer can check on the immigration status of the individual.

Supreme Court Rejects Montana campaign finance limits

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down Montana’s attempt to limit campaign contributions, citing the Citizens United ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate campaign spending.

The 5-4 ruling was made on partisan lines, with the conservative majority voting to summarily dismiss the Montana case without oral arguments.Continue Reading

The majority wrote that “there can be no serious doubt” that Citizens United applies.At issue was whether Montana elections are bound by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations, unions and other special interests to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money whenever they please to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.

In a brief dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer expressed concern for the state of Montana’s campaign finance system.

“[E]ven if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding … that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana,” he wrote.

Campaign finance deregulation advocates touted the decision as a victory for open discourse in American politics.

“Another win for the First Amendment,” declared David Bossie, president of Citizens United.

“Clearly, the much predicted corporate tsunami that critics of Citizens United warned about simply did not occur,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who of late has panned reformers’ efforts to more stringently regulate the nation’s campaign finance system.

Supreme Court Supports No Limits on Campaign Spending

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON | Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:11pm EDT

(Reuters)

By a 5-4 vote, the country's highest court ruled for three corporations - the American Tradition Partnership Inc political advocacy group, a nonprofit group that promotes shooting sports, and a small family-owned painting business - all of which challenged the law as violating their free-speech rights.

The ruling effectively applies to state and local elections and said there was "no serious doubt" the Montana law was covered by same legal reasoning as the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2010 ruling in the federal campaign finance case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In that case the court split 5-4 along conservative-liberal ideological lines to rule that corporations had a constitutional free-speech right to spend freely to support or oppose political candidates in federal elections, a ruling sharply criticized by President Barack Obama.

That decision triggered a massive increase in campaign spending that affected the elections for Congress in 2010 and has reshaped the political races ahead of the November 6 U.S. presidential and congressional votes.

Supreme Court Decision reaffirms Citizens United

Associated Press - LA TImes

June 25, 2012, 8:01 a.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its 2-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend freely to influence elections. The justices struck down a state of Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.

By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.

The same five justices said in 2010 that corporations have a constitutional right to be heard in election campaigns. The decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions in elections for Congress and the president, as long as the dollars are independent of the campaigns they are intended to help. The decision, grounded in the freedom of speech, appeared to apply equally to state contests.

Power Past Coal Update: Environmental Reviews

STATEMENT FROM BETH DOGLIO, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR FOR POWER PAST COAL, RESPONDING TO ARMY CORPS LETTER ON FULL REVIEW OF COAL EXPORT

“We need a thorough, comprehensive and transparent review looking at the cumulative impacts of all of the coal export terminals. We cannot look at each proposal with blinders on,” said Beth Doglio, Campaign Director for Power Past Coal. “The Army Corps is ignoring the serious impacts these proposals would have on communities from Montana to Eastern Washington and along our coasts. With proposals on the table to export as much as 150 million tons of dirty coal through our neighborhoods in the Northwest, residents near the mines, the rail-lines, proposed terminals, and the shipping lanes want to know the full impacts these proposals would have on their lives, health, economies and communities. That’s why businesses, tribes, health professionals, faith leaders, elected officials, conservationists and some of our top editorial boards in the region are all standing up and calling for a full review of the cumulative impacts from coal export. Coal companies are putting down their chips on as many proposals as possible – we cannot allow them to gamble with our future.”

QUOTES FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS, COMMUNITIES AND EDITORIAL BOARDS

“This project is one of at least six proposals to export coal from Oregon and Washington, and one of at least three which will require permits from the Corps. All of these projects – and others like them – would have several similar impacts. Consider, for example, the cumulative impacts to human health and the environment from increases in greenhouse gas emission, rail traffic, mining activity on public lands, and the transport of ozone, particulate matter, and mercury from Asia to the United States. To address these and other cumulative impacts, we recommend that the Corps conduct a thorough and broadly-scoped cumulative impacts analysis of exporting large quantities of Wyoming and Montana-mined coal through the west coast of the United States to Asia. This cumulative impacts analysis could be used in the environmental analyses of other proposed coal export projects of similar scope.”

- U.S. EPA Region 10, http://www.powerpastcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/USEPARegion10Letter.pdf

“Federal agencies should undertake the full reviews before green-lighting any proposals for Northwest coal ports, a list running from Coos Bay to Bellingham, Wash., on the coast and inland to Boardman on the Columbia River. Among them, reports The Oregonian's Scott Learn, the ports could bring more than 60 coal trains a day through the region, while boosting Columbia River coal-barge traffic by 70 percent.”

Sue Gunn and Corporate Personhood

Brad Shannon assembled helpful overview on our 10th District Progressive Independent Candidate, who is holding a Meet and Greet event June 15th at Farmer's Market in Olympia.
See her commitment to abolishing corporate personhood at http://www.SueGunn.org.

Sue Gunn’s background fighting for the environment at the state and federal levels goes back decades.

No other candidate running for Congress in Washington’s newly created 10th district has such a résumé. And none appears to be as clearly advocating as huge an overhaul to the political system as this self-described “scientist, optimist and crusader.”

Gunn filed this month to run as a “Prog Independent,” and as a “progressive” wants to make corporations more accountable, reduce the military significantly and put the economy on a more environmentally sustainable footing.

Gunn retired from a lifetime of advocacy and scientific work last July. She holds a doctorate in isotope geochemistry and worked for the U.S. Geological Survey for more than a decade before doing environmental policy work in Olympia and Washington, D.C.

One of her last roles was as campaign director for the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative, which she described as a coalition of environmental and recreation groups and state agencies.

As a candidate, Gunn has no illusions about the challenge ahead. The new 10th runs from Shelton to Thurston County and north to University Place and Puyallup.

Denny Heck, the leading Democrat, has raised $1 million and even the Republicans, who are trying to catch up, have raised more than $125,000 each.

Gunn isn’t seeking to raise money, but is running what she called an experiment in democracy. Rather than pay a filing fee, she collected more than 1,700 signatures from voters to qualify her candidacy for the Aug. 7 primary ballot.

“My goal is to talk about the issues that no one else wants to talk about. In many ways, to get elected you have to stay near the center and not speak the truth,’’ Gunn said. “I think that is the problem with the two-party system right now. ... The conversation bandwidth has gotten really tight. The capacity to produce solutions has gotten reduced.”

For her, that means advocacy of women’s issues like equal pay and passage of an Equal Rights Amendment, as well as protecting the environment and changing the way corporations function in the nation’s political life. Gunn thinks the nation needs to create an environmental “restoration corps” – like the Civilian Conservation Corps that put people to work after the Great Depression. The jobs could include cleanup of polluted sites.

Among issues at the top of her agenda: a push toward full employment, reduction in the size of the military and changing the federal law to require corporations to register nationally and to agree to good conduct.

Gunn now lives in rural Thurston County but grew up in Chicago where Hillary Rodham Clinton was a classmate in high school. She also worked as an editorial assistant for the now defunct Chicago Daily News, which put her in touch with columnists like the iconic Mike Royko. From there, she went into academic work and later advocacy on environmental issues. Gunn on a few other issues:

TAXES: Gunn says the Bush-era tax cuts should expire. She would increase taxes on the 1 percent of top earners – with a top rate “on the order of 49 percent.’’

ECONOMY: Gunn wants slower growth and an economy that creates fewer extremes in wealth. Although some Americans have fared poorly in the economic downturn, she does not think that economic growth is “the” solution to the country’s problems. She believes growth has caused pollution and feeds a consumer lifestyle.

CLIMATE CHANGE: It is real and she is concerned. “I would work to develop legislation that really addresses the issue,” Gunn said.

At the same time, she wants to stop the opening of new nuclear power plants.

MILITARY: Gunn wants to close many foreign military bases, including in Germany, and thinks a restoration corps can give people an alternative way of doing national service.

Like others, she is making returning veterans a high priority. She thinks those struggling to get the right care should be able to get access to something like Medicare – rather than have to rely on a nearby military hospital. Overall, she regards the Veterans Administration as understaffed and overworked.

SOCIAL ISSUES: She supports the right to abortion. She also supports recognition of same-sex marriage.

HEALTH REFORM: Gunn said she doesn’t believe people should have to buy health care insurance. She also does not like the enshrinement of private insurers in the Democrats’ 2010 reform.

Instead, she favors moving toward a single-payer health care system. If the Supreme Court strikes down President Barak Obama’s reform, “I’d be willing to go at it a second time,’’ Gunn said.

bshannon@theolympian.com 360-753-1688

AMERICANS ELECT AND THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF OUR DEMOCRACY

Americans Elect is a national online primary process aimed at nominating a third party candidate for the 2012 presidential race. The way Americans Elect publicly says it works is that people sign up to be “delegates” on their website (after filling out a questionnaire about their political beliefs) in order to nominate presidential candidates and ultimately vote to elect the nominee for Americans Elect. As the result of gathering over 2.4 million signatures so far for the November 2012 general election, ballot access for Americans Elect’s candidate is all but guaranteed in all 50 states. 

WHAT THE “AMERICANS ELECT” WEBSITE SAYS IT IS 

“Americans Elect is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is not affiliated with any political party, ideology or candidate. It is funded exclusively by individual contributions—and not from corporate, labor, special interest, foreign, or lobbyist sources. And we intend to repay our initial financing so that no single individual will have contributed more than $10K. . . . Ultimately, Americans Elect is the first nominating process that will be led directly by voters like YOU.” 

WHAT THEIR WEBSITE DOESN’T TELL YOU 

Americans Elect declares that it is not a political party, yet it is registered as one in multiple states. 

• Campaign finance watchdogs Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center have asked the IRS to investigate whether Americans Elect, registered as a 501[c](4), qualifies for tax-exempt status since it is not only devoted to intervening in the 2012 elections, it is functioning as and acknowledging itself as a political party for purposes of state ballot access, which makes it ineligible for tax exemption. 

• While political parties cannot hide their contributors’ identities, Americans Elect has repeatedly refused to disclose the sources of its funding. 

Americans Elect is funded and advised by hedge fund and junk-bond managers (who by historical experience seek a President friendly to rich people and the financial industry) and lobbyists. 

• There is considerable evidence that the $20-30 million Americans Elect has raised comes almost exclusively from large donations invested by leaders in the financial industry, the bulk of it from only 50 donors, with no one contribution exceeding $5.5 million. 

• Americans Elect founder, billionaire Peter Ackerman (who made his initial fortune as right hand man to junk bond king Michael Milken and is currently chief of investment firm Rockport Capital Inc. and the founder of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict) contributed $1.5 million. 

• Initial donations were actually low-interest loans (AE website: “we intend to repay our initial financing..), which means that if you give money to Americans Elect, your donation will likely go right back into the pockets of the multimillionaires who bankrolled the project. 

• Contrary to its web statement, Americans Elect does receive funding from lobbyist sources (one e.g., contributor Jim Holbrook is President of Promotion Marketing Association, which is a trade association that does lobbying for the PR and Marketing industry. 

• Americans Elect’s own CEO, Kahlil Byrd, has publicly said that if Americans Elect were compelled to disclose its donors, it would have a “chilling effect . . . on people’s willingness to participate in the process.” 

• At least 11 of the 50 AE’s board members work in finance. 

Americans Elect speaks the language of democracy but is not the grassroots organization it claims to be. 

By What Authority--Why Abolish All Corporate Constitutional Rights

This is a great article to spark discussion as we near the Supreme Court revisiting Citizens United. What do you think will happen?

Corporations are creations of the state. As we documented in many resources over many years, they couldn't exist in any form without the legal sanctioning of government. Since citizens are the source of all legitimate power in any representative democracy, We the People have the power to define corporations any way we see fit. We the People have rights and authority. Originally, corporations only possessed privileges bestowed by the state.

The appointed-for-life US Supreme Court "found" corporations in numerous places in the US Constitution over the past 124 years. These "findings" gave rights to corporations, including many of those in the Bill of Rights. In other words, illegitimate corporate power didn't begin in 2010. The corporate perversion of rights and the Constitution have resulted in the destruction of our communities, economy, politics and natural world in many ways for a very long time.

POCLAD believes ALL corporate constitutional rights should be abolished. These include at least the following:

• 1st Amendment Free Speech rights. Corporations use these rights, meant to protect human beings from the power of the state, to influence elections through political "contributions" (more like "investments"); to advertise for guns, tobacco and other dangerous products over the objections of communities; to avoid having to label genetically modified foods. 
• 4th Amendment Search and Seizure rights. Corporations have used these rights to avoid subpoenas for unlawful trade and price fixing, and to prevent citizens, communities and regulatory agencies from stopping corporate pollution and other assaults on people or the commons. 
• 5th Amendment Takings, Double Jeopardy and Due Process corporate rights. Corporations must be compensated for property value lost (e.g. future profits) when regulations are established to protect homeowners or communities. Corporations cannot be retried after a judgment of acquittal in court. The granting of property to a corporation by a public official cannot be unilaterally revoked by a subsequent public official or Act of Congress. 
• 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection corporate rights. These rights, originally enacted to free slaves from oppression, were gradually extended to corporations by the courts. Corporations have used these rights to build chain stores and erect cell towers against the will of communities; oppose tax and other public policies favoring local businesses over multinational corporations; and resist democratic efforts to prevent corporate mergers and revoke corporate charters through citizen initiatives. 
• Commerce Clause-related corporate rights. Corporations have used this section of the Constitution (Art 1, Sec 8), for example, to ship toxic waste from one state to another over the "health, safety, and welfare" objections of communities - claiming the waste isn't actually "waste" but "commerce." Contracts Clause-related corporate rights. The Supreme Court ruled in Dartmouth vs. Woodward (1819) that a corporation is as a party in a private contract based on the Contracts Clause (Art 1, Sec 10) rather than being a creature of public law. Even though the state creates a corporation when it issues a charter, that state is not sovereign over the charter, merely a party to the contract. Thus, corporations became "private contracts" with the state and, therefore, shielded from many forms of control by We the People. 

Since the problem of corporate constitutional rights is multidimensional, the solution must be comprehensive.

Aetna's Disclosure Boo-Boo

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Insurance giant Aetna inadvertently disclosed more than $7 million in donations to conservative political groups in a regulatory filing made earlier this year, according to a Washington-based advocacy group.

Documents obtained and distributed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington show that Aetna made a $3 million donation to the American Action Network and a $4.05 million donation to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2011.

Aetna made the disclosure in a year-end regulatory filing with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, an organization that sets insurance industry standards and provides regulatory support.

A subsequent amended filing, made in June, does not list the donations. The authenticity of the documents was confirmed to CNNMoney by the NAIC.

Advocates of campaign finance reform say the disclosures, first reported by trade publication SNL Financial, are extremely unusual, and represent the first known major donations from a publicly traded company to political organizations that are not required to reveal the source of their funding.

Resolution Week and MovetoAmend Olympia progress

In Olympia, Move to Amend finds we are on the General Government Committee schedule for July 17th, and will shortly post our three page proposed Resolution and a series of graphs and statistics showing how corporate personhood is directly impacting our local economy.  

WASHINGTON -- Activists across the country are working this week to mobilize local communities in support of a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and kick money out of politics.

It's all part of a campaign by Public Citizen (and its Democracy Is For People project), Move to Amend, multiple other reform groups and several elected officials. The campaign labeled the week of June 11 asResolutions Week, during which local organizers are holding events to increase public awareness and put pressure on local, city and state governments to pass resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment.

"[We wanted to] catalyze the groundswell of local organizing around a constitutional amendment on Citizens United," said Mark Hays, campaign coordinator for Democracy Is For People. "The first thing that came up was that people in their own communities wanted to speak up and speak out in their own communities."

The much-criticized Citizens United decision freed corporations and unions to spend freely on independent political efforts, and a subsequent lower court decision, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, freed individuals to contribute unlimited amounts to independent groups now known as super PACs. Independent electoral spending has exploded since the decision and in some cases, including some states during the Republican presidential primary, exceeded the spending of the actual candidates.

Resolutions Week looks to build on the success that groups like Public Citizen and local activists have already had in urging measures in favor of an amendment.

That effort has produced 219 resolutions at the local level in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont and elsewhere. At the state level, legislatures in Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont have passed resolutions calling for an amendment to get money out of politics. California's state legislature is expected to pass a resolution soon, which would make California the sixth state to officially endorse a constitutional amendment.

Much of this campaign has been driven by local leaders concerned about the exponential rise in the amount of money being spent on elections at all levels.

In Wichita, Kan., dietician Jane Byrnes is a chief organizer for what she calls a "ragtag group of interested citizens" who are holding an event for Resolutions Week on Thursday. Byrnes said her goal is to educate Wichitans and the city council about the issue. "I think people of all ages and occupations and all political persuasions need to be alerted to the fact that our democracy isn't what it was even six months ago," she added.

Reifman's Brilliant Work-follow I103 in Seattle

Update: Thx Slashdot, GeekWire & Macsurfer for linking. This blog has received a big jump in traffic since the New York Times' story on Apple's Nevada tax dodge. Here's a simple summary for Seattleites learning about this for the first time:

In 1997, Microsoft et al. lobbied to reduce Washington State's Royalty Tax from 1.5% to .5%, a threefold reduction. This wasn't low enough. The company decided to open a small Reno, Nevada office to dodge the tax completely.

Between 1997 - 2011, the company used its Nevada office to avoid $1.51 billion in Washington state taxes, interest and penalties. If you include impacts from the company's lobbying and calculate its savings at the original 1.5% rate, it's saved $4.37 billion.

Since 2008, Washington State has cut $4 billion from K-12 and Higher Education. We rank 31st in K-12 spending. 18% of University of Washington freshman are now foreigners (because they pay more) up from 2% six years ago. We rank 47th nationally in 18-24 yo college enrollment and 48th in K-12 class size.

In 2010, after we raised these issues to the legislature, Democratic State Representative Ross Hunter, Chair of the Finance Committee and a former Microsoft executive, led the Legislature to change the state's Royalty Tax from a tax on sales to worldwide customers to just a tiny tax on sales to Washington State customers. This reduced Microsoft's effective Nevada tax dodge by about 99%. He also included language that gave Microsoft amnesty on its back taxes.

Shortly after, Democratic Gov. Gregoire appointed another Microsoft Executive, Suzan Delbene, to run the Washington State's tax department. Delbene is married to Microsoft President Kurt Delbene.

Gregoire regularly praises Microsoft for its $5 million annual scholarship fund for technical graduates at the UW saying it helps mitigates all the unfortunate cuts to higher education - while failing to mention Microsoft's been saving $100 million annually through its Nevada tax office and the changes Hunter made to the law.

Jeff Reifman on the Microsoft Tax Dodge

Watching Hunter, Gregoire and the Democrats cater to Microsoft rather than repair our unfair tax system (Microsoft's recorded more than $579 billion in revenue since 1998) was the last straw for me. This is one of the key reasons I've left my job to help launch Initiative 103 in Seattle and gather signatures to place it on the ballot. I103 would make corporate spending on elections illegal in Seattle and restrict corporate lobbying to public forums.

Microsoft tells journalists privately that we're publishing misinformation but when confronted publicly to release its Royalty Tax payments from 1998-2010it has refused to.

We know that Microsoft's not paid its fair share of royalty taxes because thestate's published totals for revenue from the royalty tax are far less for all companies than they should be if Microsoft had been paying it.

Here's Microsoft's General Counsel Brad Smith speaking about the company's Nevada tax dodge when I interviewed him in 2004 for Seattle Weekly's Citizen Microsoft:

"Well, the principle focus of discussion inside the company and with people in state government here at times has been both the focus on revenue generation for the State of Washington and job creation in the State of Washington. And, obviously the company did make a decision, I'm not remembering exactly how many years ago to put Microsoft Licensing Incorporated in Nevada, in part to recognize the lower tax rate[sic - Nv. tax rate is zero] that was in place there. And, there have have been times when people in state government have mentioned to us the issue of whether we might move that back to the state of Washington. The reality is that in the scheme of things the impact is not very significant either for the company or for the state either the state government or the state economy."

Few Seattle residents know about this because The Seattle Times has never reported this story. After a year of trying, I landed a meeting in November 2010 to detail Rep. Hunter’s actions to five Seattle Times journalists and Executive Editor David Boardman. While Boardman expressed interest in reporting the story, the paper never followed through. Microsoft has never disputed any specific facts that we've reported.


In January, The Seattle Times did publish an editorial by Smith, one of its designated "Luminaries" (seen at right in a house ad for the paper) who oversees the company’s Nevada corporations,“…it's [Washington] state's paramount duty to provide for the public education of all children. Unfortunately, steady declines in public resources now threaten our ability to live up to that commitment.” He supports Governor Gregoire’s call for to increase the state’s sales tax, already the most regressive in the country.

If you want to learn more, read our overview, our 2010 fact sheet and ourrecent summary of where things stand today. You can also watch Amanda Congdon's fun introductory video to Microsoft's Nevada Tax Dodge.

If any of this makes you angry, I encourage you to get involved with Initiative 103. Placing I103 on the ballot in Seattle and passing it is the first step to cleansing Washington State government of undue corporate influence.

Supreme Court reviews ramifications of CU ruling

Why justices may revisit ruling that unleashed campaign spending

A Montana case is expected to prompt the Supreme Court to review the ramifications of its Citizens United ruling and a subsequent case that effectively lifted the lid on unlimited political spending.

By David G. Savage and Melanie Mason

Tribune Washington bureau

By design or happenstance, a two-track campaign-funding system has been created: One features small donors and strict regulation; the other exists for the very wealthy, who are largely freed from regulation.

Exasperated defenders of campaign-finance laws see the Citizens United decision as a historic blunder that has all but destroyed not only the 1940s limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions, but also post-Watergate reforms. They are asking the justices to reconsider the Citizens United ruling by taking up a Montana case that raises some of the same issues.

Fred Wertheimer, a champion of campaign-finance laws, says the decision has "fundamentally undermined our democracy and is taking the nation back to the system of 'legalized bribery' that existed in the robber baron and Watergate eras."

WI "recall election"

If the Wisconsin recall is truly second in importance only to the presidential race, as many media outlets have trumpeted lately, then why have those same outlets so badly neglected one of that election's most salient aspects?

As millions of dollars in dark right-wing money pour into the state to preserve Gov. Scott Walker from his progressive opposition, it seems relevant that he and many top aides are under investigation in a campaign finance and corruption scandal that has been growing for two years.

Yet the national media have largely ignored the fascinating details of that probe — which has already resulted in indictments, convictions and cooperation agreements implicating more than a dozen Walker aides and donors. Only readers of the local newspapers in Madison or Milwaukee would know, for instance, law enforcement documents have emerged in court during the past few days suggesting that Walker stonewalled the investigation in its initial phase.

The typical reference to the scandal in the national media notes that Tom Barrett, Walker's Democratic opponent, is seeking to “stoke suspicions” regarding the investigation, “in which former Walker aides stand accused of allegedly misappropriating campaign funds.”

Most important election in 2012

Submitted by Ben Manski, Executive Director, Liberty Tree Foundation

The most important election of 2012 is tomorrow, June 5.

Will it be stolen?

Last year, Wisconsin rose up, and changed everything about politics in America.  They set the stage for Occupy Wall Street.  Wisconsin set a standard for the fightback against austerity, and the struggle for democracy.

The recall of Scott Walker will again set the standard for America. What happens on June 5t, and immediately after, will impact every election for the rest of the year.  And it will declare who will win--organized people, or organized money?

Wisconsinites collected almost 2 million signatures to force their recall.  This in a state of just 5.7 million.  And Wisconsonites are carrying the weight of winning that election.  This despite the fat that due to Walker's policies, Wisconsin is the only state in the country to suffer net job losses over the past year.

It would not only be morally wrong to abandon Wisconsin now.

All the polling says the recall election will be very close. We're not sure we believe those polls. But we do know that when the polls are close, elections are sometimes stolen.  We saw that with the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004.  And we saw that with Wisconsin's Supreme Court election last year, when 8,000 votes were discovered on the day after the election by Waukesha County Clerk Nickolaus; 8,000 votes to reverse progressive candidate Joanne Kloppenburg victory and to keep the court in the hands of the Chamber of Commerce.

No more stolen elections. We urge you to join us in supporting the Wisconsin Wave and thier No more Stolen Elections! campaign, both projects of the Liberty Tree Foundation.

The plan is simple.  Track and speak out against voting rights violations in the days leading up to the June 5th elections. Prepare Wisconsonites to mobilize in the event of a clearly stolen election. Analyze and report on the fairness of the election.  And on the day after the election, gather in Voter Assemblies across the states to that if the election is stolen, Wisconsonites respond immediately.

You can go to www.LibertyTreeFoundation.org to learn more, and to support their in-depth work.  Programs include: democracy Convention, Law of Democracy Project, Move to Amend, No More Stolen Elections! and the Wisconsin Wave.

A Different Kind of Candidate in District 10 election

Sue  Gunn’s background fighting for the environment at the state and federal levels goes back decades.

No other candidate running for Congress in Washington’s newly created 10th district has such a résumé. And none appears to be as clearly advocating as huge an overhaul to the political system as this self-described “scientist, optimist and crusader.”

Gunn filed this month to run as a “Prog Independent,” and as a “progressive” wants to make corporations more accountable, reduce the military significantly and put the economy on a more environmentally sustainable footing.

Gunn retired from a lifetime of advocacy and scientific work last July. She holds a doctorate in isotope geochemistry and worked for the U.S. Geological Survey for more than a decade before doing environmental policy work in Olympia and Washington, D.C.

One of her last roles was as campaign director for the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative, which she described as a coalition of environmental and recreation groups and state agencies.

As a candidate, Gunn has no illusions about the challenge ahead. The new 10th runs from Shelton to Thurston County and north to University Place and Puyallup.

Denny Heck, the leading Democrat, has raised $1 million and even the Republicans, who are trying to catch up, have raised more than $125,000 each.