Fresh Updates from RAC

On Tuesday, Wisconsinites voted to keep Scott Walker (R) in his gubernatorial seat. While pundits and politicians are drawing a number of lessons from the recall campaign (the third in U.S. history and the first in which the incumbent retained his post), one lesson in particular stands out like a badger in a grass field: Money has too big of an influence in politics in this post-Citizens United world.

Candidates and independent groups spent a total of $63.5 million dollars on the recall campaign, an amount that far surpassed the previous Wisconsin record of $37.4 million, which was set in the 2010 gubernatorial campaign. Of the $63.5 million, Governor Walker’s campaign raised $30.5 million, two-thirds of which came from contributors outside of Wisconsin. In contrast, the Democratic contender, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, raised only $4 million since he entered the race in March. These numbers boil down to Walker having more funds by a margin of 7.5 to 1. Moreover, $22 million of the spending in the race –that’s one-third of the total amount of spending—came from independent expenditure groups that would not have been able to contribute if it wasn’t for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

Read more…

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider its first challenge to the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which opened the door to unlimited corporate and union spending in political campaigns. The case, which would ultimately determine whether the Citizens United decision can be applied at the state level, specifically to Montana, which has challenged the scope of the ruling.

Although it prides itself on being known as Big Sky Country, with depth-defying vistas and landscapes stretching as far as the eye can see, Montana also recognizes that “big” shouldn’t apply to everything—especially the role of money in politics. In January, Montana became the first state to uphold a state law banning corporate contributions to campaign spending (the law in question, the Montana Corrupt Practices Act, was passed in 1912 to counteract the unfair influence wielded by the Butte “Copper Kings” that dominated the state’s economy). In its decision, the first to reject arguments that Citizens United applied to a state, the Montana Supreme Court found that the influence of money in politics is just as corrupting today as it was in 1912, so the statute should remain in place. Read more…

It is time to reverse the damage wrought by the Citizens United decision. Politicians, non-profit organizations, citizens groups, and even President Obama have protested the ruling since the Supreme Court delivered its contentious 5-4 decision in January 2010 that permitted corporations and labor unions to use unlimited amounts of their general funds to advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for political office. Here at the RAC, we have repeatedly called for the ruling to be overturned, largely guided by our tradition’s warning against the dangers of mixing money and politics and the Jewish values that call for public accountability in a system of governance. As it says in Deuteronomy 16:19: “You shall not judge unfairly: you shall know no partiality; you shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the just.”

There are only so many ways to overturn a decision by the highest court of the land: The Supreme Court could decide to hear a case that challenges the decision, or lawmakers could pass a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of money corporations and labor unions can spend in politics. Due to the record-breaking political spending and shadowy corporate influence unleashed by Citizens United in time for the 2010 midterm and 2012 presidential elections, both of these proposals have gained traction. Read more…

The 2010-2011 Supreme Court term ended on Monday with a little less fanfare than usual – for the first time since 2009, a justice did not retire – but no less intrigue to those of us court-watchers. This year’s term saw a new associate justice; a consolidation of the ideologically conservative wing of Justices Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas, who were in the majority in 87% of the cases that were decided by a 5-4 margin; a victory in one of the cases in which the Reform Movement joined an amicus brief; and several disappointing decisions affirming the Court’s recent tendency to favor corporations. Here are some highlights of the 2010-2011 term (and keep reading for a preview of what’s to come):

Read more…

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision invalidating the matching fund provisions of Arizona’s public campaign financing system and threatening similar programs around the country. The consolidated McComish v. Bennett and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett is the first campaign finance case since Citizens United v. FEC (2010), in which the court overturned 63 years of precedent establishing the right of government to prohibit corporations from spending unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections. It was also the fifth campaign finance case heard by the Roberts court, and in each instance, the Supreme Court has erased existing campaign finance regulation. As such, the decision was both unsurprising and unsettling for supporters of campaign finance reform, including the Union for Reform Judaism, which submitted an amicus curiae brief defending Arizona.

Read more…

Last week, President Obama announced his intention to issue an executive order that would force government contractors to disclose their donations to groups that participate in political activities. The President is initiating this effort in response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC, which, in overturning 63 years of precedent, allows corporations to spend unlimited sums of money on campaign advertisements. It is also a response to the failure of Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would have legislatively enacted similar policies to those the President intends to impose through executive order.

Read more…

Ben & Jerry’s has a new ice cream flavor called Clusterfluff that sounds absolutely scrumptious. Their website describes the new flavor as follows:

Read more…

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated cases McComish v. Bennett and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. These cases, for which the Union for Reform Judaism drafted its first amicus curiae brief (thanks to invaluable work of URJ East District Chair Andy Goodman and his colleagues at Garvey Schubert Barer), consider the constitutionality of the “matching fund” provisions of Arizona’s public campaign financing program. This is the first time the Supreme Court has heard a campaign finance case since its landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which overturned 63 years of precedent prohibiting corporations and labor unions from spending unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertisements. Another decision overturning campaign finance regulation would be extremely damaging and a huge blow to those who wish to limit the influence of wealthy and powerful corporate interests in our democracy.

Read more…