Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Clements AT January Con C

Clements AT January Con C

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9 |Likes:
Published by Arjun Talpallikar
Con case for Houston Lamar with Mohammad
Con case for Houston Lamar with Mohammad

More info:

Categories:Types, Speeches
Published by: Arjun Talpallikar on Feb 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
We negateCI: Contributions are nonunique
A: Historical trends
How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game? July 17, 2012 New York Times.
 
Matt Bai (NYT) 2012
 
 
The level of outside money increased 164 percent from 2004 to 2008 [and]
Then it rose
 
135 percent from 2008 to 2012.
 
In other words
, while the sheer amount of dollars seems
 
considerably more ominous after Citizens United,
the percentage of change
from one presidential
 
election to the next
has remained pretty consistent.
since the passage of McCain-Feingold. And
 
 
this suggests that
[
T]he rising amount of outside money was probably bound to reach
 
ever more staggering levels with or without Citizens United.
B: Soft Money
 According to
Bradley Smith:
 
Bradley Smith is
 
the chairman of Center for Competitive Politics andthe former chairman of the Federal Election Commission
[Those against the Decision] have not even mentioned how much corporationscontributed in party soft money prior to the 2004 cycle, or how much nonprofitsspent in non-express advocacy, which they could do at any time
 
prior to the 2004 cycle,
 
morethan 60 days out from the general or 30 days out from the primary in the 2004campaign,
 
and
 
for most intents and purposes
at any time in the 2008 campaig
n
 
(after Wisconsin Rightto Life II). For example,
in 2004, forgetting about 501(c)(4) and (c)(6)nonprofits, “527s”
alone spent approximately $600 million. In 2000, the parties alone raised
approximately $400 million in “soft money,” with of course much more being
spent by 527s and other nonprofits
.
C: The problems predate CU
 
 
Matt Bai (NYT) 2012
 
Even corporations,
 
though they couldn’t contribute to a candidate or a party,
were free to write
 
unlimited checks to something called a social-welfare group, whose principal
 
purpose,
ostensibly,
is issue advocacy
rather than political activity.
 
 
“So
under the old rules, the Club for Growth couldn‟t broadcast an ad that said „Vote
 
Against Barack Obama,‟ but it could spend that money on as many ads as it
 
wanted that said „Barack
Obama has ruined America
 
call and tell him to stop!‟ as
 
long as it did so more than 60 days before an election.”
 
 
That all changed with the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
,
 
popularly known as the McCain-Feingold law. The new law stamped out soft money for good, but it also created avacuum in political fund-raising. The parties could no longer tap an endless stream of soft money,
but thanks tothe advent of the 527, rich ideologues
with their own agendas
could write massive checks
 
for the purpose of building
what were, essentially,
shadow parties
independent groups
 
with their own turnout and advertising campaigns
, limited in what they could say but accountable
 
to no candidate or party boss.
Wealthy liberals like Soros and Lewis
,
along with groups like
 
MoveOn.org
,
were the first to spot the opportunity.
All told,
wealthy liberals spent
 
something close to $200 million in an effort to oust George W. Bush in 2004, setting
 
an entirely new standard for outside spending.
 
D. CORPORATIONS HAD AMPLE ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN POLITICALEXPRESSION BEFORE
Richard Briffault
[Prof. of Legislation, Columbia Law School], “CORPORATIONS, CORRUPTION,
 AND COMPLEXITY: CAMPAIGN FINANCE AFTER CITIZENS
UNITED,” 20 Cornell J. L. & Pub.
 Pol'y 643 (2010-2011)
First, corporations were free to engage in so-called "internal communications,
" that is, campaigncommunications
from the corporation to its shareholders and executive and administrativepersonnel and their families.
21
These
internal communications,
which were not subject to anymonetary limit, could include messages expressly advocating the election of the corporation'sfavored candidate or the defeat of her opponent.
 
Second, federal law permitted corporations tospend without limit on "nonpartisan activity designed to encourage individuals to vote or registerto vote,
" 22 and to undertake "nonpartisan registration and get-outthe- vote campaigns" aimed attheir own stockholders and executive and administrative personnel. 23 Although such campaignshad to be nonpartisan in content,
nothing in the law precluded a corporation from targeting itsregistration and get-out-the-vote efforts on groups it believed were likely to support thecorporation's favored candidates.
 
Third, under federal law a corporation is free to spendcorporate resources to establish and pay for the administrative expenses of a "separatesegregated fund to be utilized for political purposes
"24-better known as a political actioncommittee or PAC.
The corporation may also pay for the costs of soliciting donations-fromshareholders, executive and administrative personnel and their families, or under certaincircumstances from all corporate employees and their families-to the PAC, which could be usedby the PAC to make contributions or undertake independent spending in support of or oppositionto candidates
. 25
There were no monetary limits on the amount of independent spending a PACcould undertake
-although the contribution a shareholder, executive, or other employee or familymember could make to the PAC was capped at $5,000 per year.26 Although Citizens Unitedreferred to a PAC as "a separate association from the corporation," 27
legally it is entirelycontrolled by the corporation that creates it. The corporation selects its officers and staff and,most importantly, the corporation can determine which candidates the PAC supports and howmuch money it can spend with respect to each of those candi- dates.28 The PAC is thecorporation's legally authorized campaign spending alter ego
, although it can spend only what itraises in voluntary donations from corporate stockholders and personnel, not from thecorporation's general treasury. 29
Fourth, and most important, the restrictions on corporate spending apply only to a narrowlydefined category of election-related communications. The precise scope of that category hasvaried over time, from relatively constrained at first, to somewhat broader in 2003-2007, to morelimited in the years immediately preceding Citizens United
. Buckley v. Valeo limited the definition
 
of campaign "expenditure" for all groups other than candidates and political parties tocommunications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate forfederal office, and then went on to define express advocacy as consisting of terms like "'vote for,''elect,' 'support,' 'cast your ballot for,' 'Smith for Congress,' 'vote against,' 'defeat,' [and] 'reject."'30 These became known as the "magic words" of express advocacy. All other activity came to beknown as "issue advocacy," even though it need not involve the discussion of issues.
CII Shareholders act as a Self-Correction Device
Shareholder Activism prevents companies from controlling the politicalatmosphere.
Yet the real pressure points, or at least the most consistent ones, are likelier tobe felt among
 
shareholders who may be upset over negative consumer opiniontriggered by a donation, or who are themselves directly opposed to a particulardonation.
 
[engage in]
 
Shareholder activism
, about which we’ve written so frequently in
 these pages,
[which] is thus a salient countervailing force against the oligarchic trendspurportedly unleashed by
Citizens United 
.
 And corporations know it, as themounting number of voluntary disclosures clearly suggests.
Consider the Center for Political Accountability
 
itself as a barometer of theactivist sea change.
 
According to its
 
own
 
reports, shareholders working withCPA have filed a total of 51 resolutions in 2012
.
Of those, 13 led to agreementswith the company.
 
For example, theNew York State Pension Funds
“successfully engaged”
Safeway, Kroger, CSX Corp.,Sempra Energy,R.R. Donnelley & Sons, and Reynolds American.Trillium Asset Management
“reached agreements” with
Halliburton, Chubb Corp, andState Street Corp. The list goes on, encompassing both individual shareholders and otherinstitutional investors.
 
On the left
,
observers likeCraig Holmanof Public Citizen argue that
shareholders are increasingly less amenable to “
squander
” money on the
 political enthusiasms of their CEOs
.
Union Activism increases turnout 
 
LAS VEGAS SUN:
Unions expand voter turnout effort thanks to Citizens United
By Karoun Demirjian (contact)  Thursday, Nov. 1, 2012 | 2 a.m.
The
call to issue those reminders has ballooned the size of the local unions’ ground game. SEIUofficials say they are targeting “tens of thousands” of doors beyond their 18,000
-strong membership

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->