Street roots
Jan. 20, 2012
Portland City Council’s Resolution against corporate personhood: Jan 12,2012
Establish as a position of the Portland City
Council that corporations should not have the
constitutional rights that natural persons
possess, that money is not speech and that
independent campaign expenditures and
campaign contributions should be regulated
(Resolution)
WHEREAS, each year, the City of Portland
updates its Federal legislative Agenda; and,
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution
and the Bill of Rights are intended to protect
the rights of individual human beings also
known as "natural persons"; and,
<e
important contributions to our society, but the
City Council does not consider them natural
persons; and,
WHEREAS, while state and federal
governments may provide certain privileges to
corporations, these privileges do not equate to
the rights of natural persons protected by the
WE
h is a
fundamental freedom and unalienable right
and fair elections are essential to democracy
and effective self-governance: and,
WHEREAS, United States Supreme Court
Justice Hugo Black in a 1938 opinion stated, “I
do not believe the word 'person' in the
fourteenth
es
corporations"; and,
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court
held in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that the
appearance of corruption justified limits on
contributions to candidates, but rejected other
fundamental interests that the City Council
finds compelling such as creating a level
playing field and ensuring that ail citizens,
regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to
have their political views heard; and,
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court
in Buckley overturned limits on independent
campaign expenditures by individuals.
associations, and political action committees
because it found that the government’s
interest in preventing corruption or perception
of corruption of elections was sufficient only to
allow li
on direct
ri
to
candidates; and,
WHEREAS, United States Supreme Court
Justice John Paul Stevens observed in Nixon
v. SI
that “money is property, It is not speech,"; and,
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court
recognized in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Commerce (1990) the threat to a republican
form of government posed by "the corrosive
and distorting effects of immense aggregations
of wealth that are accumulated with the help of
the corporate form and that have little or no
correlation to the public's support for the
corporation’s political ideas" and upheld limits
on independent expenditures by corporations;
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court
in Citizens United v. The Federal Election
Commission (2010) overruled the decision in
Austin and the portion of McConnell v. Federal
Election Commission (2003) that had upheld
restrictions on independent corporate
expenditures, holding that the First
Amendment protects unlimited direct corporate
spending to influence elections, candidate
selection, and policy decisions and to sway
votes; and,
WHEREAS, prior to Citizens United decision
unlimited independent campaign expenditures
could be made by individuals and
operated under federal contribution limits; and,
WHEREAS, given that the Citizens United
decision “rejected the argument that political
speech of corporations or other associations
. should be treated differently” because the First
Amendment “generally prohibits the
suppression of political speech based on the
CORPORATIONS, from page 4
rules has resulted in transparency problems.
After the Citizens United decision on Jan.
21, 2010, corporate entities could begin
using treasury dollars for independent
expenditures regarding federal candidates.
Keep in mind that corporate entities include
businesses and unions. In the case of
unions, corporate treasury dollars means
money that comes from the thousands of
members of those
groups. In the case of
corporations,
corporate treasury
One valuable element of the dollars mean profits.
Since independent
P ortland resolutioa is tbat It
expenditures before
recognlies the need to
Citizens United could
consider ether reasons
be legally paid for by
individuals and PACs,
besides a narrow locus on
the presence of
co rru p tio n as the basis lo r
independent
cam paign finance
expenditures in 2010
regulations®
wasn’t new, but the
volume increased due
to the new availability
of corporate money.
This means, however, that overturning
Citizens United doesn’t enable regulation of
all independent expenditures. This is why
one valuable element of the Portland
resolution is that it recognizes the need to
consider other reasons besides a narrow
focus on corruption as the basis for
campaign finance regulations.
Though one effect of Citizens United was
to equate corporations with people and
groups, it did so on the basis of the First
Amendment. In the words of corporate
personhood activist Jeffrey Clements,
“Citizens United is a corporate power case
masquerading as a free speech case. This
means that addressing corporate
speaker’s identity," there is a need to consider
other reasons in addition to corruption or the
perception of corruption regulating
independent expenditures for or against a
candidate; and,
WHEREAS, a February 2010 Washington
Post-ABC News poll found that 80 percent of
Americans oppose the U.S. Supreme Court
Citizens United ruling that allowed use of
corporate treasury dollars for independent
expenditures; and,
WHEREAS, the opinion of the four dissenting
justices in Citizens United noted that
corporations have special advantages not
enjoyed by natural persons, such as limited
liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment
of the accumulation and distribution of assets:
and,
WHEREAS, corporations are legally required
to put profits for shareholders ahead of
concerns for the greatest good of society while
individual shareholders as natural persons
balance their narrow self-interest and broader
public interest when making political decisions;
WHEREAS, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and
Oregon Representatives Peter DeFazio, Earl
Blumenauer, and Kurt Schrader are pursuing
campaign finance reform legislation with a
focus on addressing Citizens United through
amendments to the United States Constitution;
and,
WHEREAS, addressing both the Citizens
United decision, and corporate personhood is
necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the City Councils of Missoula,
Montana: Boulder, Colorado; and Madison.
Wisconsin have referred the issue of corporate
personhood to their communities for an
advisory vote;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that
it is the position of the Portland City Council
that corporations should not have the
personhood alone isn’t enough, but Citizens
United joins a long list of court decisions
that inappropriately give corporations undue
constitutional protections. This is why it is
so important that the Portland resolution
addressed corporate personhood.
What Citizens United didn’t do is
overturn limits on direct contributions to
candidates from individuals and PACs. It
also didn’t overturn a ban on use of
corporate treasury dollars for contributions
directly to federal candidates, though this
ban is under attack in a new court case.
The catch, of course, is that the
effectiveness of these limits is undermined
by the growing volume of independent
expenditures.
This trend got worse when, due to
Citizens United, previous limits on the size
of contributions to PACs making
independent expenditures were overturned
by a lower court. That decision led to the
formation of super PACs that can only make
independent expenditures using
contributions of any size from any source.
The court didn’t accept the argument
that “large contributions to independent
expenditures lead to preferential access for
donors and undue influence over
officeholders.” One wonders about that
reasoning when there are donors like Las
Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who
gave a whopping $5 million to Winning Our
Future, the super PAC formed to support
Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. Winning
Our Future is led by past associates of
Gingrich, a trend seen in most super PACs
including those that support President
Obama.
The Center for Responsive Politics
reports a spending spike by political
nonprofits in 2010 after the Citizens United
decision, because now those groups could
use corporate contributions for
constitutional rights that natural persons
possess; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED given its impact
on free and fair elections and effective self-
governance that Portland City Council
determines that the most urgent action needed
to address the negative impacts of United
States Supreme Court Citizens United (2010}
campaign expenditures by corporations; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of
Portland hereby includes in its 2012 Federal
Legislative Agenda support for an Amendment
to the United States Constitution, which
consistent with this Resolution, reverses the
impacts of Citizens United, including, but not
limited to the provisions of the current drafts of
S. J. Res. 29 introduced by Senator Tom Udali
of New Mexico and Senator Jeff Merkley of
Oregon and H J . Res. 72 introduced by
Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon and
co-sponsored by Representatives Earl
Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio of Oregon;
and, respectfully urges Oregon's
Congressional delegation to prioritize
congressional proposal of an amendment to
the United States Constitution addressing the
threats to representative government identified
in this resolution so that the states may ratify
it; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Portland
City Council requests that the City Attorney's
Off!
referring an advisory vote to the citizens of
Portland on the issue of corporate
personhood, and present their findings within
30 days to the Council for further
consideration; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Hie City of
Portland calls on other communities and
jurisdictions and organizations tike the U.S.
Conference of Mayors and National League of
Cities to join with us in this action by passing
similar Resolutions.
electioneering at any time. Trade
associations such as the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce are in this group that, under IRS
rules, do not have to reveal their donors.
Bill Moyers reports that the Chamber with
“most of its funds from about a hundred
businesses” such as British Petroleum and
JP Morgan Chase spent “approximately $75
million” during the 2010 campaigns through
a “covertly funded front.”
Labor unions have also spent money in
new ways after Citizens United. For
example, AFSCM E used $7 million in
treasury dollars for independent
expenditures, and the National Education
Association set up a $3.3 million super PAC
during the 2010 elections. This union
spending, however, comes from their many
members and is outnumbered by business
spending on politics.
To summarize, Citizens United had a
major impact on federal campaigns in 2010
with all indications that the 2012 election
season will be even more dominated by
money flowing in new and poorly disclosed
ways. In the words of Jim Hightower, “the
more you spend on politics, the bigger your
voice is in government, making the vast
vaults of billionaires and corporations far
superior to the voices of mere voters.”
National polling indicates that 80 percent
of Americans oppose the Citizens United
ruling. Reclaiming our democracy from
plutocracy is why the Portland resolution
addressing corporate personhood and the
Citizens United decision is such an
important first step.
Read Janice Thompson’s breakdown of
campaign financing in the Portland
mayoral race, “Movers, shakers and
moneymakers,” at www.streetroots.wordpress.
com