 |
 |
Michael Allen
By DON THOMPSON
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
North Bay Assemblyman Michael Allen introduced a resolution Wednesday to reverse a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed corporations to spend as freely as individuals in campaigns.
The resolution calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which held that corporations can spend unlimited sums to influence elections. The ruling generally is viewed as benefiting Republican candidates.
Allen, D-San Rafael, submitted the resolution with Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, on the same day Occupy protesters announced they would target more than 80 courthouses nationwide Friday, including some federal courts in California, to protest the Supreme Court decision.
The protests are scheduled one day before the second anniversary of the ruling, which has led to a surge in corporate campaign spending.
“A lot of us believe the Supreme Court ruling has thrown us out of balance,” Allen said. “It’s a system that’s out of whack, and for democracy to function well, everybody needs a voice and not to have some voices drown out the others because of overwhelming resources.”
Hawaii passed a similar resolution last year and other states are considering similar action, according to Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit advocacy group backing the resolution.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
It’s very simple. One person, one vote. I don’t want to see shareholders leverage their influence on our political process, nor do I want to see union workers leverage their influence. Pass the MoveToAmend proposed language and throw money out of politics.
I’ll believe corporations are entities distinct and different than people when one incorporates itself and engages in political speech on its own.
The “corporations aren’t people” slogan is a cute soundbite. But it’s no substitute for a logical argument.
I’ll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one! Seriously, folks, I am astonished that there are people who support unlimited anonymous political expenditures by faceless corporate PAC’s in the name of free speech. That does not even pass the straight face test.
Mockingbird purports “Unions represent THE people?”
Hardly.
Unions represent their members and in the case of Public Safety and the Prison Guards in California, they have no problem whatsoever pressuring malleable politicians to do their bidding no matter if it hurts THE people, (ie. the poor, the sick, the young, the elderly, schools, universities and members of other less well entrenched and connected Unions).
Tell me how the budget eroding sweetheart deal Brown and the Legislature handed the Prison Guards this Spring benefits THE people?
John Bly, what I’m clearly saying is that charities (not fake nonprofits like Rove and Cheney set up to control elections and get rightwing candidates elected) and unions don’t have the same leverage or amounts of money that big corporations like the Koch Brothers run. They just don’t. Not only that, but we know who is donating the money at least where unions are concerned. I believe that those “nonprofits” that the rightwing set up are fronts with multibillionaire and corporate backing. It’s targeted to control elections all over the country. To support candidates who will vote to change state voting law to disenfranchise whole swaths of the population from voting with the lie that it’s to prevent voter fraud which is very rare. All of which should be illegal.
I’m not trying to stop free speech. I want the truth-those behind the donations so that the people of America can decide on who to vote for WITH THE TRUTH.
The citizens of America and corporations (and ESPECIALLY MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES SINCE THEY OPERATE EVERYWHERE AND SHOULDN’T BE INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS)are not equal. The constitution DOES NOT SAY that corporations are equal to citizens, the Supreme Court does. The corporations cannot speak for every worker that works for them, they speak for themselves as individuals along with the citizen investors. We union members donate to the union to protect and represent our interests. You CANNOT say the same thing about corporations.
Barrack Obama has the most powerful megaphone in the world. No other come close. He uses it often to criticize and denounce corporations. That’s OK by me, even though he’s often guilty of demagoguery.
What’s not OK is to deny corporations the right to enter the political marketplace and defend themselves.
This is about one thing: denying speech that some people don’t like. Enemies of Citizens United are enemies of the First Amendment.
@mockingbird-I must question the dollar figures first-you are saying corporations have contributed “billions” in political contributions for candidates? I dont believe that but I do get your point. My point was you can’t just curb corporation spending to influence elections. I take it you disagree with me? So in your solution, it would be ok for churches, non-profits, associations, unions, or any business owner (as long as he/she has not incorporated), to spend unlimited amounts to buy political seats? I am saying we need to take all the influence out and let electeds truly represent their constituents-not just those with bucks to pay out.
I hope someone runs against Allen. I would vote for ANYONE else. ANYONE else would do a better job. He is such a clown.
Maybe you all miss the point that unions represent the people? The only voice we seem to have left with any power? I have a problem with citizens united putting corporations on equal footing with American citizens. Unions represent American workers so they represent Americans. Corporations are often MULTINATIONAL so aren’t even American companies, aren’t represent their workers’ interests in any case. That should be alarming to you all.
The big issue is hiding behind a patriot sounding name and keeping the actual “donors” secret. The donors can tell you a lot about a candidate. Look at the Koch brothers and Scott Walker (who misrepresented his agenda when campaigning). I can tell you the unions put their name on every ad and every piece of literature they put out PROUDLY. When you see it you know it’s the union. No secrets. All open and above board.
John Reed – It might blow you away, but I totally agree with you. “Activist judges” only seem to earn their title if they rule on something on the other side of the aisle.
Republicans & pro-death penalty people might criticize Faye D’Opal in Marin for recently halting the death penalty in California on procedural grounds; but they were all noticeably silent when the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United.
I think that we should be able to call a spade a spade, regardless of the spade’s political affiliation – although sometimes that clouds the view.
Another example: When that Republican Congressman yelled “you lie” during the President’s State of the Union, I thought it was horrible behavior, and unbecoming all around. However, I have to say that I felt the same way when I watched Cindy Sheehan disrupt Bush’s State of the Union as Lynn Woolsey’s guest. I voted for Lynn six or seven times at that point & wanted Bush/Cheney impeached, but that didn’t excuse the behavior in my eyes.
When people are too consumed with seeing their forest through the trees, they tend to overlook certain things growing in their own backyard. Some people will tend to overlook an utter disregard for the process or rule of law, just because they like the outcome.
Another example in my world of that would be the unlawful SMART ordinance aimed at RepealSMART & obstructing our efforts to vote on this. Some people excuse the SMART board’s behavior, because they want the train. But it should matter to them too that the board openly defies the Secretary of State, and violates our election laws. It should matter to all of us.
I am pleasantly relieved though to see outrage on both sides of the aisle over Obama signing the Patriot Act sequel. However, don’t you think that it would have had much different reaction if Bush/Cheney signed the same bill?
Although I also agree with Graeme, in the sense that this may be more of a figurehead piece of legislation, but that doesn’t discount its value. If the ERA still hasn’t made its way into the Constitution yet, I don’t see this bill doing so. And if the Citizens United ruling affected corporations AND unions, yet Mr. Allen’s bill is only directed at corporations, then it has much less merit.
Yes, Allen and Wieckowski want to amend the First Amendment. I give them credit for acknowledging at least that that is what they must do to deny free speech rights to groups they dislike.
This is an improvement on others who would trash the Constitution, if they could, via simple legislation.
Doesn’t anyone get that Allen and Wieckowski are saying they want to amend the 1st Amendment? Isn’t the absolute absurdity of the proposition news worth reporting? What speech do they want silenced by the way? What is the substance of what they want unsaid? Why? How about more speech instead? Do you or does anyone truly get persuaded by excessive speech?
Allen says he wants the 1st Amendment changed. I say, “Shut up!” How can we take Allen seriously on anything now that he’s seriously proposed something like amending the 1st Amendment?
Where are the reporters asking the obvious questions? Why does a flagrant absurdity get a free pass from our local paper? I hope the new owners do a better job.
@RC – you really think that my wanting to remain anonymous is the same as an organization spending millions on an election!? Being able to know who is supporting a candidate can tell you a lot about that candidate.
I want to add, Planned Parenthood saves the taxpayers money in the long run. FREE BIRTH CONTROL saves us BILLIONS every year. And helps save the planet too. You all complain about taxation yet support the spend and borrow Republican candidates who say the want small government then spend their time legislating our behavior.
John Bly-I just have to laugh at your post. $56 million from Planned Parenthood (IF that’s correct) and BILLIONS from corporations and rich rightwing bastions. There is no comparison. As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather PP kept that money and used it for the good works they do than have to spend it lobbying for the right to exist. Planned Parenthood has been a religious rightwing Republic target for a long time. They want it gone. It’s not just about abortions, but women’s, men’s, and babies’ health. It’s about birth control (I can’t believe that birth control in all forms are on their chopping block). It’s about family planning. This agenda is JUST THE OPPOSITE OF SMALLER GOVERNMENT THAT THE REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WANT.
This could be good if it goes far enough. Planned Parenthood had $56 million in donations for candidates. Whether you are pro-life or not, that is a lot of money. In other words, it is not just corporations that are “drowning out the people’s voices”.
LBR,
We differ only in that you wanted to blame Citizens United for something it has nothing to do with. The exploitation of these “loopholes” are the inevitable consequence of laws that limit direct contributions to political candidates and existed before CU.
As to your opposition to anonymity in political speech, really, you can’t see why some people might wish to remain anonymous, Let’s Be Reasonable? -g-
And the idea that lots of money shouldn’t be spent to influence politics n Washington when the federal govt spends $3.6 trillion dollars each year and has regulatory power to make or break industries is not realistic. That’s the root cause of all this spending so many people object to.
@RC – The Citizens United decision itself said that anonymous donors would be bad, but did not say that it was unconstitutional. Unlimited corporate spending, combined with 501(c) organizations ability to spend up to 50% on political activities (with donors able to remain anonymous) you get “social welfare” groups like Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity springing up – they were the largest spenders in the 2010 elections.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/us/politics/21money.html?pagewanted=all
LBR,
What’s your source for this: “The biggest issue with the 2010 ruling in my mind is that it allows anonymous contributions.”
From the NY Times:
“People who hate Citizens United, last year’s blockbuster campaign finance decision by the Supreme Court, tend to blame it for allowing secret money from corporations and unions to flood the political landscape. But the critique is wrong on at least one point — the bit about secrecy.
An often-overlooked part of the Citizens United decision actually upheld disclosure requirements, saying that “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/disclosure-may-be-real-legacy-of-citizens-united-case.html
I’m afraid much of the criticism of Citizens United is misinformed.
There’s always going to be a way for special interests to bribe elected officials. If our elected officials wouldn’t take the money for favors then something would be accomplished. There’s the problem. Most of our politicians have little to no moral integrity and can actually be bought for a relatively small amount of money. Even a position on some powerless board is enough for some people to report on their neighbors or worse.
Articles in our newspapers are spun to favor some politicians over others and some big businesses over others. After all, they are the ones that buy the big ads in the newspaper. Is everyone for sale or do some people still have the spine to say no to those who would buy influence?
Allen acts like he was the one who thought of having a Constitutional amendment to address this but he was just the one chosen to do it to help with his re-election bid. It’s funny too because if corporations aren’t people, and I don’t think they are, then labor unions are not people either and would also be prohibited from making their campaign contributions. People running for office should be of high moral character not the ones who sell out to the highest bidder.
Yeah, what about union contributions?
The unions want to control the fascist favors.
Separation.
Church – State.
Private sector – Public sector.
Glass-Steagal act of 1933.
SEPARATION.
These grey lines are making the Country…red.
Three Cheers to Michael Allen for putting this issue on the table for California. The Citizen’s United decision will be known to our children as the Dred Scott decision of our time. This was the final proof that the Robert’s Supreme court is a political lackey of the conservative/corporate interests that installed them. So much for ‘judicial restraint’ and ‘calling the balls and strikes’. Have you noticed that “activist judges”, as defined by the conservatives, is anyone who renders a decision that they don’t like?
It’s grandstanding. It’s completely impossible to get a Constitutional amendment to alter the 1st Amendment – the basis for the Citizen’s United decision.
This guy is obviously the target of a super PAC that has the truth on him and there’s no other way for him to fight back. A very telling story here Press Democrat. How did you miss the issue again?
“It’s a system that’s out of whack, and for democracy to function well, everybody needs a voice and not to have some voices drown out the others because of overwhelming resources.”
I completely agree with Mr. Allen.
Unions run the State of California, of that there is little question.
As you may recall, Mr. Allen was a shill for increased pension benefits, primarily for Public Safety, back in the early 2000′s.
That worked out great, didn’t it!
i wonder how much gingrich likes citizens united now.
My problem with the Supreme Court decision is simple. It is illegal for politicians to accept donations from foreign nationals and campaigns must document every donation to prove it. Super Pacs, who’s members may be made up of multinational corporations put their money in a black bag and are free to spend it as they want. We don’t know who’s money it is, I don’t think we even know how much they are spending.
One thing for sure, if you don’t have to sign your name to it, you can and will make the most outrageous lies. Newt Gingrich, who supported the Supreme Court decision, got a small taste of the Super Pac meat grinder in Iowa. The fall campaign is probably going to be the ugliest in my lifetime.
this is important and a beginning to the end of corporate control of our government…
I lost all respect for Allen the moment I saw his office located in the electricians Union Hall on Cleveland Ave. near Coddingtown mall.
How many of you have your very own politician located just down the hall from your own office ?
Well, of course, you’d have to pay for his favors like the other union members.
He is a used car salesman and nothing more.
The biggest issue with the 2010 ruling in my mind is that it allows anonymous contributions. Corporations and/or unions funding attack ads is one thing, but being able to do so without the public knowing who is paying is VERY disturbing.
Allen ripped off the Sonoma County Water Agency ratepayers to the tune of $95,000 while selling his vote on the Planning Commission, ripped off the State of California taxpayers while he campaigned for a year for Santa Rosa City Council and then the Assembly, Allen ripped off his own union members by doubling his own salary just before he retired from SEIU, and…
He managed to collect over $500,000 in campaign contributions from union PACs in Sacramento and Washington along with some under the table union help to buy the seat he holds.
So let’s give him some credit. He’s knows the issue of campaign finance well. He’s just doing the union’s bidding with this resolution and wants to cover his tracks with some feel good spin. What’s next? He’ll join a convent and adopt the mantra “out out damn spot.”
If we abolish corporate “personhood”, then this would also apply to non-profit entities (which are corporations), trade associations (which are non-profit corporations), labor unions, and virtually any formal association of people that is officially organized.
How then, do we encourage philanthropy with tax deductions, if a structure for accepting those deductions into not for profit corporations no longer exists?
And where is the fairness of letting media organizations, which virtually all include a substantial editorial/opinion aspect, use unlimited resources to influence public opinion as elections approach, but somehow everyone else is not allowed to do so?
Oh, and as it turns out, of the top 10 heavy hitting contributors in politics, 5 are unions, 3 are professional associations, and 2 are for-profit corporations. None of the top 10 heavily favor Republicans in their contributions, though two slightly lean that way.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
Makes me wonder what exactly all these left wingers are complaining about, since their candidates benefit far more from this policy than their counterparts on the right.
And why would Mr. Allen, who has strong union backing, sponsor something that would in essence be shooting himself in the foot (limiting his own contributors)? Unless they are envisioning a way to cut off the corporate money, but allow the unions and trade organizations to continue to buy elections…..
Thanks Buddy Bear. Michael Allen has the workers and families (ALL WORKERS AND FAMILIES not just union)on his mind when he does his job in Sacramento. He supports the middleclass and the poor and his performance in Sacramento has shown just that.
For the posters who just don’t understand the value and power of unions here’s the way it is. Unions don’t have the power you think they do. If they did Obama would have operated a lot more progressively during his office (of course he is now because he wants to get elected and wants union support). We all know his primary contributors are not union but corporate, especially Wallstreet corporate. We union members haven’t been so enamored with Obama but we will vote for him because the alternative is absolute disaster. I’d be happy to vote for Biden, or Hillary, or Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren over Obama if they were running in the primary.
The unions DO NOT HAVE THE MONETARY RESOURCES THEY ONCE DID because unions membership is WAYYYYYY down and member contributions for political purposes is also way down. The public is not supporting unions even though unions really represent all working people. Do away with unions and all working people will lose in the current corporate controlled environment. Unions represent about 12% of the workers these days.
Unions used to be more powerful and they also got both Democratic AND Republican public and politician support. The Republicans have joined the ranks of their corporate masters and no longer represent the voters that vote for them. No matter what they say in public, their actions and their hands out for the big bucks show who they really are representing. It’s obvious and detrimental to both workers and the country. The working people and small businesses are the real power behind this country and we are now second class citizens to the powerful corporate world thanks to money, greed and the Supreme Court.
FINALLY.
Republican, Democrat, and Independents alike should all be praising this move, even if it turns out to be a symbolic gesture its the right thing to do.
We need to take the power back from Wall Street, the stock market is a good thing, business is a good thing. We get mad when politics sticks its nose into the business world, we should be equally skeptical when Wall Street sticks its nose into politics. Bought and paid for politicians don’t represent people, they represent sky rocketing profits and no accountability.
@Reality Check, lies lies lies:
“Has Allen really proposed overturning only the part that applies to corporations?”
Open a civics book and learn something about court rulings and constitutional amendments.
I would support this if unions are precluded from having excessive influence also – especially public employee unions – because they are buying local elections and drowning out citizen voices.
Where is the resolution to restrict union political contributions and influence on government? Public unions like SEIU fund, support and elect too many local politicans and it shows in the way this state is being driven into the ground with outrageous benefits, salaries and political influence.
Yeah, reign in the corporations because they give mainly to Republicans but no mention of the unions that control the Democrats. FYI, the candidate that got the most corporate money in the 2008 election was Obama, led by Goldman Sachs. No mention of that in the paper though.
They are all on the take so what does it matter?
I apologize for the tone of my previous post. It was inappropriate.
However, I’ve grown weary of one-sided reporting on this issue. Citizens United enjoyed bipartisan backing, including supporting legal briefs from the Sierra Club and unions, in addition, of course, to those “evil” corporations.
Imagine that, a broad coalition all wanting . . . . gasp! . . . full First Amendment rights.
I wish the article would have provided a link to the resolution, as I’d like to read the actual wording.
There seems to be a nationwide consensus behind going straight for a Constitutional Amendment to put the notion of corporate personhood permanently behind us. Hurray! This can’t come soon enough.
I hope this proposed resolution goes for the whole enchilada and does more than bite away at the edges.
I know Michael Allen ,he is a very nice guy, very friendly ,I know for fact he shop locally, believes in helping his community, he wants the good of the country, but naturally want the good of himself also . We as public are not paying him wages.
Do you know where I’m going?
They all do that,republican or democrat or another party. Do you know anybody doesn’t?
Thanks Assemblyman Allan for another great bill on behalf of your constituents. This is exactly the kind of leadership we need and it makes me very happy to have voted for you.
He is most likely the most corrupt official in sonoma county history and cares nothing about he future of Sonoma county let alone america.
Take, take, take, take, who cares about the future
Political pandering from a politician who has lost the public’s trust.
The resolution is a good one, though.
Unlike theater, it’s not about your performance on stage.
It’s how you perform backstage.
Ted, Ted, Ted,
The Citizens United decision “held that corporations [and unions] can spend unlimited sums to influence elections.”
Has Allen really proposed overturning only the part that applies to corporations?
The sloppiness here is embarrassing.