“But it can certainly influence the thinking of those who can.”

Filed Under California, Election 2010, Personal, United States | Leave a Comment

Elavil And Dogs Timed Release Coreg Beta Blocker Wholesale Coral Calcium Hgh Kaiser Children Generic Cialis Absolute Lowest Price Genric Imitrex Diflucan Muscle Amatriptolene Elavil Melatonin Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Cipro South Africa Side Effect Of Fosamax Seroquel Sued Parlodel Sex Prograf 8400 Calcium Carbonate Or Calcium Citrate Taking Expired Tramadol Levaquin Uti When To Have Sex With Clomid Hoodia Kalahari Desert Foods That Block Coumadin Stipled Enhancement Radiology Breast Zocor Eyes Accutane For Moderate Acne Cla Interactions With Coumadin Problems With Nexium Zoloft Grogginess Soma Beds Cipro Tendon Damage Treatment Crestor Class Action Cheapest Viagra Prices Uk Jessica Allegra Nude Does Cialis Cause Infertility Aricept And Parkinsons Disease Rogaine Hair Regrowth Treatment Consumer Reports Maximum Daily Oral Prednisone Dose 220mg Aleve Children Soma Hair Remove Lamisil Topical 5mg Tyr 176-191 Hgh Frag Zyprexa Fda Buspar For Low Libedo How To Take Hgh Injections Crestor Rhabdomyolysis Is Zetia A Statin Drug Viagra Approved Cymbalta Sid Eeffects Cardizem Injection Price Hoodia South Africa Zetia In Generic Drug Form Zoloft Withdrawls

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 5-4 majority of the United States Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (decided 6-3 in 1990) and thus eliminated the “basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”

Moreover, the 5-4 majority justifies their overruling of Austin by claiming that “the First Amendment applies to corporations” and cites First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (decided 5-4 in 1978) and NAACP v. Button (decided 6-3 in 1963).

The Court’s opinion is being interpreted as providing a corporation the same right to free speech as a human being. In my opinion, the 5-4 majority is incorrect in overruling Austin and wrong in granting a corporation the right to free speech. It will take some time for the Court’s decision to be reversed.

It should be clear that corporations already exercise their right to free speech at a state level. The Court’s decision simply opens the proverbial gates of hell at a federal level.

With efforts already underway across the country and in Congress to mitigate the affect of the Court’s decision, the question is what can we do to inoculate ourselves from the onslaught of corporations exercising their right to free speech?

…

First and foremost, I believe each election matters, plain and simple, whether it’s your local school board or President of the United States.

Let’s think about the impact of elections on a local school board level:

A local school board decides what classes your children will be able to take.
Do you want your kid to become a doctor? Great! Then they will need to take advanced biology.
Do you know that some schools do not offer advanced biology?
If the school your child goes to does not offer advanced biology, what are you going to do about it? Petition the board and/or find a candidate for school board who will champion advanced biology. Board does not care and/or you can’t find a candidate, then run for school board and do it yourself.

Now, let’s think about the impact of elections on a state level.

On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, Californians will vote for 80 state assembly, 20 state senate, 53 congressional, 1 senatorial, 8 statewide offices and 5 statewide propositions.

People will start voting-by-mail as early as Monday, May 10, 2010, nearly a month before election day.

On June 8, and as early as May 10, Californians will vote for or against the following 5 statewide propositions:

Proposition 13, Constitutional Amendment, Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.
Proposition 14, Constitutional Amendment, Elections: open primaries.
Proposition 15, Statute, Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.
Proposition 16, Initiative Constitutional Amendment, New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.
Proposition 17, Initiative Statute, Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.

Now, what do we know about these propositions? #13 is bad luck; #14 reminds me of my brother’s favorite soccer jersey number; #15 can only be divided by prime numbers; #16 would have been sweet, but I am not a girl; #17 is how old I was when I graduated high school (I turned 18 a week later). So to answer the question, at this point, not much.

From right… now, until… June 8, 7:59pm, we will be under the influence (and no, I am not talking about that), but the influence of our family, friends, local leaders, elected officials, political parties, labor unions and corporations to vote for or against these propositions.

Let’s look at who is officially for or against these propositions as of now:

Click Image for Larger View

According to the chart above, a couple of things:

Proposition 13, Constitutional Amendment, Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.

There is no support or opposition yet. This would imply it’s non-controversial at the moment or of less importance to organized interests.

Proposition 14, Constitutional Amendment, Elections: open primaries.

There is both support and opposition.
The support side has plenty of money to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
The opposition side has not reported its funding levels. I expect this to change soon.

Proposition 15, Statute, Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.

There is support, but no opposition yet.
The support side has enough resources to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
I expect the opposition side to form late in April or mid-May and spend a ton of money on television and radio advertisements. There is no benefit to organizing early. If internal polling shows its winning, expect an infusion of resources from the opposition side who expect to lose from this proposition.

Proposition 16, Initiative Constitutional Amendment, New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.

There is both support and opposition.
The support side is extremely well-funded and has expended over $3 million dollars in 2009 to build support for its position. Click here to see who has contributed to the $3 million pool of money, you’ll be intrigued.
The opposition side has virtually no resources. Barely enough to setup a rudimentary website.

Proposition 17, Initiative Statute, Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.

There is opposition, but no support yet.
The opposition has enough resources to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
I expect the support side to come in late April/early May. Again, if internal polling shows its losing, expect an infusion of resources from the support side who expect to win from this proposition.

Proposition 16 attracts my attention and highlights my earlier statement that corporations already exercise their right to free speech at a state level.

If you clicked “Click here to see who…” link above, you’ll find that Pacific Gas & Electric donated $750,000, another $750,000, a whopping $1.5 million and another mere $500,000 for a grand total, $3.5 million dollars.

Take this example and imagine it replicated across the country, in 50 states, over 435 congressional seats and 100 senate seats.

…

Returning to the question that I asked earlier, so what can we do to inoculate ourselves from the onslaught of corporations exercising their right to free speech?

You just did it by reading this post. You armed yourself with information. But there is more to know and at the very least, when you start to hearing and reading about Proposition 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17, you have a better sense of who really is supporting or opposing it.

But the onslaught has just begun and a corporation now has the same right to free speech that you do. The ultimate difference between a person and a corporation is that a corporation cannot vote, but it can certainly influence the thinking of those who can.

	Name	Total Contributions in 2009	Cash on Hand at end of 2009
13	Support	n/a	n/a	n/a
13	Oppose	n/a	n/a	n/a
14	Support	CALIFORNIANS FOR AN OPEN PRIMARY	$138,000.00	$137,794.12
14	Oppose	PROTECT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY – SAY NO TO THE OPEN PRIMARY	n/a	n/a
15	Support	CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE FAIR ELECTIONS COMMITTEE	n/a	n/a
15	Support	CALIFORNIANS FOR FAIR ELECTIONS SPONSORED BY CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY ACTION FUND	$221,990.62	$78,801.29
15	Support	CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY ACTION FUND	n/a	n/a
16	Support	CALIFORNIANS TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE MAJOR FUNDING FROM PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, RENEWABLE ENERGY, BUSINESS AND LABOR	$3,500,000.00	$27,800.82
16	Oppose	TAXPAYERS AGAINST THE PG&E POWERGRAB, SPONSORED BY LOCAL POWER INC. & THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK	$5,525.00	$98.17
17	Support	n/a	n/a	n/a
17	Oppose	CALIFORNIANS FOR REAL INSURANCE REFORM: SPONSORED BY CAMPAIGN FOR CONSUMER RIGHTS	$117,451.84	$96,500.86