Mediaboss Marketing

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United unleashed a flood of corporate money into American politics, giving corporations and wealthy donors free rein to influence our elections. On February 6, 2020, the Democracy for All Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that would change campaign finance laws and limit the amount of money that can be used to influence elections, will have a public hearing for the first time in the 116th Congress. Learn about the history of Citizens United, previous attempts at passing a constitutional amendment, and other effects of the 2010 ruling by exploring the resources below, all contributed over the years by Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md. 8), a former senior fellow at People For the American Way.

The only effect of Citizens United was to give CEOs of business corporations the power to take unlimited amounts of money from corporate treasuries and spend it advancing or defeating political candidates of their choosing. Its real-world consequence was thus not to expand the political freedom of citizens but to reduce the political power of citizens vis--vis huge corporations with vast fortunes. These corporations, endowed with limited shareholder liability, perpetual life, and other privileges, may now freely engage in motivated political spending to enrich themselves and their executives, leaving workers and other citizens behind.

Read more here.

On March 25, 2015, PFAW Foundation Senior Fellow Jamie Raskin previewed his upcoming report, The Supreme Court in the Citizens United Era, during a member telebriefing. Executive Vice President Marge Baker and Senior Legislative Counsel Paul Gordon also joined the call to answer questions from members and discuss PFAW efforts to promote fair and just courts. Drew Courtney, former director of communications for PFAW, moderated.

Read more here.

The [proposed] 28th Amendment would reaffirm and restore congressional and state power to regulate campaign finance, but nothing in it could interfere in any way with the First Amendment doctrines of viewpoint and content neutrality as they would apply to such regulations. The 28th Amendment would, for example, empower Congress to restore the aggregate candidate contribution limits that had been in place under FECA for decades and were just invalidated by the Supreme Court in the 5-4 McCutcheon decision.

Read more here.

Thus, if the justification being offered forCitizens United is to allow individual citizens to associate and combine resources in the corporate for to participate more effectively in the political process, as the question posits, then this justification is hollow and specious because all Americans already had that right. Without a rationale for the decision that explains specifically why the managers of for-profit business corporations must have the power to spend corporate treasury resources on political campaigningthe power, that is, to convert economic wealth amassed in business by a corporation into political finance capitalwe are left with the implication that five justices on the Court overturned multiple constitutional precedents [] and struck down dozens of federal and state laws, all simply in order to increase the political power of corporate executives and the candidates they may choose to fund.

Read more here.

Four years ago, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Roberts Court majority bulldozed an essential block of the wall, the one that kept trillions of dollars in corporate treasury wealth from flowing into federal campaigns. In Arizona Free Enterprise Clubs Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011), the Court stifled public debate and destroyed vast new opportunities for political speech by striking down public financing programs that use matching funds to amplify the voices of less affluent candidates competing to be heard over the roar of big wealth. In McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), the Court took a sledgehammer to the aggregate contribution limits, empowering political tycoons and shrewd business investors to max out to every Member of Congress and all their opponents. All of these assaults on political equality and free speech were justified in the name of the First Amendment.

Read more here.

If right-wing America had set out to design a Supreme Court case that combined all of its political fetishes, it could not have done better than to come up with Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, a devilishly complex assault on Obamacare, womens health care rights in the workplace, and the embattled idea that the Bill of Rights is for people, not corporations. The outlandish claims of the company involved would not have a prayer except for Citizens United, the miracle gift of 2010 that just keeps giving.

Read more here.

Now, in the bitterly divided Citizens United decision (2010), five Justices on the Roberts Court have held that corporations have the right to spend unlimited sums of money promoting or disparaging political candidates. This decision built on the dangerous fallacy that state-chartered corporations enjoy the same political free speech rights as the people strikes another dangerous blow against popular democracy. It is a blueprint for government of the big corporations, by the big corporations and for the big corporations.

Read more here.

Follow this link:
Former PFAW Senior Fellow and Then-Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin on a Constitutional Amendment to Citizens United - People For the American Way

A lawsuit stemming from the highly publicized expulsion of a Kansas City library patron from a public event nearly four years ago has drawn to an end after the judge ruled in favor of the lone remaining defendant.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Beth Phillips found for an off-duty police detective who arrested Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, a documentary filmmaker from Lawrence who sued the detective and 13 other defendants over the incident, which drew national headlines.

Rothe-Kushel claimed his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated after he was physically restrained on May 9, 2016, following a lecture at the librarys Plaza branch by American diplomat and former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross.

The lecture, about President Harry Truman's recognition of the state of Israel, was organized by the Jewish Community Foundation and the Truman Library Institute. Following the April 2014 shootings that left three people dead at the Jewish Community Center and Village Shalom in Overland Park, there was heightened security at the event.

During a planned question-and-answer session after the lecture, Rothe-Kushel stepped up to the microphone and asked Ross a long, rambling question alluding to what he said was a history of state-sponsored terrorism by Israel and the United States.

Ross responded and Rothe-Kushel began arguing with him. At that point, the man in charge of security for the event, Blair Hawkins, began to physically remove Rothe-Kushel from the microphone. Hawkins was director of security for the Jewish Federation of Greater Kansas City, which had hired him following the 2014 shootings.

Video of the incident shows Hawkins grabbing Rothe-Kushels arm, telling him Youre done and attempting to remove him from the mic. Rothe-Kushel is seen yelling even as a second person approaches the mic to ask a question.

Rothe-Kushel was later arrested in the lobby after an off-duty officer hired for the event asked for his identification and he refused to give it. The librarys director of programming and marketing, Steven Woolfolk, was also arrested after he sought to intervene and prevent Rothe-Kushels removal.

Woolfolk was later charged with obstruction, interfering with an arrest and assaulting a police officer. After a day-long trial in September 2017, a Kansas City Municipal Court judge acquitted him of all three charges.

The actions taken by the officers sparked outrage among civil libertarians and were condemned by the librarys then-executive director, R. Crosby Kemper III, who said the officers had overreacted.

Rothe-Kushels lawsuit named 14 defendants, including officials of the Jewish Community Foundation and the Truman Library Institute; the off-duty policemen involved in the incident; Kansas City Chief of Police Rick Smith; and members of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, including then-Kansas City Mayor Sly James.

Rothe-Kushel later voluntarily dismissed his claims against the members of the police board and the off-duty officers, except for the detective who arrested him, Brent Parsons.

The claims against officials of the Jewish Community Foundation and Truman Library Institute had been dismissed earlier in the case although its not clear if they were dismissed because the organizations reached settlements with Rothe-Kushel or because of the merits of their legal defenses.

I can say that matters as to other defendants were concluded, said Arthur Benson, one of Rothe-Kushels attorneys. Thats all I can say.

Officials of the Jewish Community Foundation and Truman Library declined to comment or could not be reached for comment.

In her 12-page ruling Thursday in favor of Parsons, Judge Phillips found that Parsons had probable cause to arrest Rothe-Kushel for trespassing and for refusing to provide his identification.

She also found that while Rothe-Kushel had a First Amendment right to ask Ross questions, that right was not limitless: (H)e could not ask so many questions that other audience members were deprived of the opportunity, and he had no right to argue with Ambassador Ross (and no right to expect Ambassador Ross to engage in such an argument).

Finally, Phillips found against Rothe-Kushel on his claims of conspiracy to violate his civil rights, false arrest and conspiracy under state law.

Rothe-Kushel, reached by email, declined to say whether he had reached settlements with any of the defendants.

Fred Slough, another attorney representing Rothe-Kushel, said it was a serious wrong for Rothe-Kushel to have been removed and arrested. He said Rothe-Kushel would have complied with a request to leave the library.

Instead he was grabbed and manhandled in the middle of an exchange with the Ambassador that was not a disturbance, except in the sense that some in the audience audibly disagreed with its content, Slough said via email. The law does not allow such a heckler's veto of free speech.

Editor's note: This story was updated with Rothe-Kushel's comment.

Dan Margolies is a senior reporter and editor at KCUR. You can reach him on Twitter @DanMargolies.

Originally posted here:
Free-Speech Case Over Patron's Arrest At The Kansas City Public Library Finally Comes To An End - KCUR

Appearing on CNN on Friday afternoon, a former GOP county chair who operates a soybean farm in Ohio took some shots at Donald Trump after he told Iowa rally attendees that their farms would go to hell if he is not re-elected in November this year.

"They dont care about the farmers," the president told the crowd in Des Moines. "You should love Trump, with what I've done. We're going to win the great state of Iowa, and it's going to be a historic landslide, and, if we don't win, your farms are going to hell, I can tell you right now. 'Sell, sell,' they'll be saying. 'Sell!'"

Speaking with host Anderson Cooper, Chris Gibbs who is also considering a run against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) as an independent, all but rolled his eyes at the president's comments.

Read the original here:
Absolutely cowardly! Ex-Tea Party lawmaker delivers brutal verdict on GOPs impending Trump acquittal - Raw Story

Unilevers tea party may be winding down.

The consumer goods giant has kicked off a strategic review of its global tea business that could lead to the sale of famous brands such as Lipton and PG Tips.

The review comes as consumers brew less black tea which accounts for two-thirds of Unilevers tea segment and drink more herbal varieties instead, company officials said Thursday.

Weve not reached a conclusion and all options remain on the table, Unilever CEO Alan Jope said on a conference call with analysts.

Unilevers US-listed shares rose 3.7 percent, to $59.85 on Thursday.

Unilevers tea segment has seen growth in emerging markets and its premium herbal brand Pukka has performed well, according to the company, which said it has the worlds biggest tea business.

But sales of black tea which generates about $3.3 billion in yearly sales around the world for the company have dropped in developed markets for several years because of changing consumer tastes, Unilever said. The company also owns the Tazo and T2 brands.

We have really seen this trend play out, Jope said. Its not a short-term thing. Its a long-term trend over a decade.

Unilever announced the review despite denying that it was weighing a sale of its tea segment in November after the Telegraph newspaper reported that it would put the business on the auction block.

The company had just launched a review of its portfolio that month and wanted to clamp down on speculation about the future of its tea business, Jope said Thursday. He indicated that the review thats now underway may not necessarily lead to a sale.

When were thinking about these things, well communicate transparently, Jope said.

With Post wires

See the original post:
Unilever weighs sale of tea brands Lipton and PG Tips - New York Post

There are many theories about when it was exactly thatRepublicans lost their minds. Some will point out, correctly, that the strain of reality-freeconspiracy-mongering that defines the Donald Trump presidency dates back at least to the era of Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society. Others will note Richard Nixon's reliance on the "Southern strategy,"which helped remake the GOP into a white ethno-nationalist party that was capable of nominating Trump. Still others will point to the Tea Party, which was reported at the time as somehow an anti-tax movement, but now looks clearly likea panicked, racist reaction to the election of Barack Obama, and resulted in a purging of any moderate or reality-based impulses in the Republican ranks.

But whenever it started, I think it's safe to say that the upcoming votes in the Senate impeachment trial,in which the Republican Senate majority will hold tight to prevent any witnesses from testifyingand will then vote to acquit Trump, will mark apoint of no return for the Republican Party.

Even considering how lost to reason and reality Republicans have been for years now, there's something final and official about going on the record to register their collective belief that facts don't matter and that democracy, to them, is little more than an obstacle in the way of their efforts to maintain power.

That Republicans would pull together to turn the Senate trial into a sham aimed at covering up Trump's crimes has been regarded as a foregone conclusion from before the moment thatSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry months ago. Despite this, I suspect it willbe a gut punchall the samewhen the entire Republican Party comes together to "acquit" Trump despite the inarguable evidence that he is guilty.

They are not voting to declare the president innocent of the charges against him, since that is clearly absurd.They are voting to announce that,in their eyes, there's no limit to what can or should be doneto maintain the Republican hold on power.

Advertisement:

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., all but admitted as much Thursday, in a series of tweetsacknowledgingthat the accusationagainst Trump that he withheldmilitary aid and political support for Ukraine in order to force that struggling nation's president to help himcheat in the election "has already been proven." ButTrump's behavior, Alexander claimed, was merely "inappropriate" but "does not meet the U.S. Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense."

This is, of course, nonsense. As the constitutional expert Pamela Karlan,who testified before the House in December, argued, the founders literally created the impeachment powers to mitigate "the risk that unscrupulous officials might try to rig the election process."

Alexander openly giving his blessing to presidentsusing their powers of office to cheat in elections or to Republican presidents, anyway illustrateswhy the twin votes to shut down witness testimony and to acquit Trump should be understood as the consummation of the GOP's long courtship with authoritarianism.

This will be the final note of a long process in which the Republicans allowed argumentsin the Congressional Record, most notably from fabled defense lawyerAlan Dershowitz, defending apresident's "right" to cheat in elections, and then affirmed this belief with a formal vote.

Dershowitz is now running around, making incoherent claims that he wasn't arguingwhat he said he was arguing, but that hardly matters. His case forpresidential tyranny was made on the Senate floor, and his attempts to claw it back in the media don't carry anywhere near the same weight.

For those of us who have watched Republicans closely throughout this process, what has been striking is the shamelessness and bad faith on display, as they have competed to be the biggest lickspittle to the wannabe fascist smearing his fake tan all over the White House.

Was it Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, openly bragging about how he was coordinating with the Trump defense team to rig this sham of a trial?

Was it Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas starting a podcast about impeachment dedicated to licking Trump's shoes, despite the fact that Trump spent the election calling Cruz's wife ugly and accusing Cruz's dad of murdering JFK?

Was it Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky using the trial as an excuse to air the name of the whistleblower who first reported Trump's bribery scheme, a move clearly meant to suggest to intimidateother federal employees out of stepping forwardwith information about Trump's crimes and corruption?

Was it Sen. Susan Collins of Maine working herself into an outrage over Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., accusing Republicans of being a bunch of quislings who let Trump control them, even though the upcoming miscarriage of justice proves Schiff correct?

Perhaps trying to decide who is the worst of them is a little like trying to pick which cat turd inthe litter box stinks most. It doesn't much matter at the end of the day. What matters is that the entire basketof Republicans is thoroughly corrupt and divorced from any concern for reality or decency, and this week they're making it official.

Why are they all so rotten to the core? The answer lies in looking at the gulf between the power Republicans have and thevotes they actually get. Trump won the2016 election because of the quirks of the Electoral College, even though Hillary Clinton got nearly 3 million more votes. In 2018, Democrats in Senate races got 12 million more votes than Republicans, yet Republicans gained seats.

Republicans have structural and geographic advantages that allow them to stave off the threat of actual democracy, but they fear that this won'tlastforever. As never-Trumper Evan McMullin noted on Twitter:

Republicans in the Senate are affirming and supporting Trump's schemes to cheat in 2020 for the simple reason that they believe they can't win without cheating. They've already been using legal and quasi-legal methods to cheat tearing apart campaign finance laws, defanging the Federal Election Commission, passing voter suppression laws, wild gerrymandering schemes but Trump has now opened that final door to outright criminal conspiracies to cheat in elections.

In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned for doing pretty much the same thing Trump did: His goons were running an illegal scheme to help him cheat in the 1972 election, and he was engaged in thecover-up. Nixon resigned not because he wanted tobut because congressional Republicans, or enough of them anyway, believed that the rule of law mattered more than maintaining their party's political power. Republicans worked with Democrats to expose evidence that led to Nixon's downfall.

Nowadays, the opposite is true: Republicans are working to conceal evidence, and when they can't conceal it are arguing that it doesn't matter what Trump does anyway. In votingto block witnesses and then to acquit a clearly corrupt and criminal president, they are making it official: Cheating in elections is no crime, so long as you're on their side.

There is no turning back now. Republicans will, of course, continue to pretend they're anything but the party of corruption and cheating, but the veneer of plausible deniability has been stripped away. Theirparty's last vestiges legitimacyare gone, and they know it. In fact, they're voting on it in the Senate sometime on Friday.

What this means for the rest of us is still not clear. There will be an election in November, and a newly emboldened Trump will probably concoct more criminal conspiracies to cheat in it. Hemay very well win. Ifhe doesn't win, it's entirelylikely that he'll reject the election results and refuse to leave, launching a new and much more dangerous episode in our slow-unfolding constitutional crisis. Senate Republicans, having already signed off on his cheating, may conclude there's no reason to stop now, and find some excuseto back his illegal rejection of the election results.

There is no longer any reason to believe Republicanswill balk at anything that allows them to hold onto power. I do mean anything.

How far this goes, and whether our democracy can still be dragged out of this dark pit,is still unknown. But the history books will almost surely mark the end of this sham trial as the day that Republicans, who long ago made a mockery of their historical legacy as the party of Abraham Lincoln,reached the point of no return.

Continue reading here:
Voting to acquit this noxious criminal is the point of no return for the Republican Party - Salon