Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Street roots. (Portland, OR) 1998-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 20, 2012)
4 street roots Jan. 20. 2012 COMMENTARY D , , • p. . . Protesters m Denver rally against Citizens United, a conservative political group at the heart of the corporate personhood decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. R E U TE R S /R IC K W IL K IN G Corporations aren’t people — except in politics BY JANICE THOM PSON Citizens United decision as a fundamental and PACs. The Buckley court, however, assault on democracy. An accountant and found that due to the independent nature of small business owner supported the this type of political spending from these ARTICLE 1 - Portland City Council resolution and stressed that it was not anti groups, there is no potential for corruption. says that corporations aren’t people business. The court also rejected other reasons for The only opposition came from an regulating independent expenditures such n Jan. 12, the Portland City Council individual concerned that the resolution as fairness or leveling the playing field. adopted a resolution in support of wasn’t fair and the American Civil Liberties This means that even before the Citizens amending the U .S. Constitution to Union of Oregon, whose representative United decision there were independent address the Citizens United decision and instead urged support for public financing expenditures in federal campaigns, just the notions that money equals speech and reform and rigorous campaign finance none paid with corporate treasury dollars. corporations are people. disclosure requirements. Before Citizens United there was a Portland joined New York City, Los The vote was 3-0 with Commissioners history of regulation on corporate political Angeles, and a growing number of other Nick Fish and Dan Saltzman absent. The spending that began with the 1907 Tillman cities in objecting to corporations being Portland Alliance for Democracy reports Act. In 1947, the Taft-Hartly Act barred given undue constitutional protections. One that Fish had indicated support for the labor unions and corporations from making feature of the Portland resolution is that it resolution prior to his absence. expenditures and contributions in federal also urges regulating independent elections. These limits were such expenditures, like those made by super established law that they weren’t part of the PACs (political action committees) in the litigation that led to the Buckley decision. presidential primaries. The resolution also ARTICLE 2 - What did Citizens In 1990, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of requires the city attorney to assess the legal United do? Commerce was upheld by the U .S. Supreme feasibility for the council to refer an The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Court and described the reason for advisory question for a popular vote. Supreme Court focused on one aspect of regulating corporate political spending as Mayor Sam Adams introduced the the flow of money in federal candidate the “corrosive and distorting effects of resolution and said, “The discussion in front campaigns: independent expenditures, immense aggregations of wealth that are of us is not a big rhetorical discussion about which are payments for electioneering for or • accumulated with the help of the corporate whether corporations are good or bad. It against a candidate that are produced form and that have little or no correlation to depends on the corporation. This resolution independently of the candidate. the public’s support for the corporation’s is about what kind of electoral system the Independent expenditures are treated political ideas.” U .S. wants to design.” differently from direct contributions due to This Austin rationale was the key factor The opening panel of testifiers included two elements of the Buckley v. Valeo in upholding McCain-Feingold regulations representatives of Portland Move to Amend, decision. The 1976 Buckley decision on use of corporate treasury dollars for Portland Alliance for Democracy, Occupy addressed reforms adopted in the Federal electioneering. These were the regulations Portland, and Common Cause Oregon. Election Campaign Act (FECA) as amended of concern to the nonprofit group Citizens Occupy Portland’s advocacy was a critical in 1974 in response to reports of serious United regarding contributions for tipping point for action by the City Council financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential distribution of its movie about Hillary on a topic that Portland Move to Amend and campaign. Clinton. Alliance for Democracy began to work on in Buckley upheld limits on direct The Citizens United decision overturned early 2011. Many other groups also testified contributions to candidates because free Austin and eliminated the part of McCain- in support including a representative from speech concerns were outweighed by the Feingold that regulated corporate- the Program on Corporation, Law & potential for corruption or the appearance independent electioneering. The Citizens Democracy that began its work to abolish all of corruption. United decision upheld legal provisions constitutional rights for corporations 15 Putting limits on direct candidate about campaign finance disclosure but years ago. contributions, though, sets the stage for inaction by the Federal Elections More than a dozen city residents spoke independent expenditures. This is why Commission and Congress to update these as individuals in support for this local FECA included limits on independent action, citing corporate personhood and the expenditures from individuals, associations C O N T R IB U T IN G W R IT E R Ja n ice Thompson is the executive director fo r Com m on Cause Oregon. She is the form er head o f Democracy Reform Oregon (which was previously known as the M oney in Politics Research Action Project). Com m on Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded as a vehicle fo r citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest. O See CORPORATIONS, page 5
