The movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to get corporate money out of elections is picking up some serious steam.
On November 9, thousands of Americans attended one of more than 200 house parties nationwide -- organized by PFAW, Public Citizen, Move To Amend and other allies, and joined by Sen. Bernie Sanders -- to mobilize and plan for a day of action on the upcoming January 21st second anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court decision that unleashed unlimited corporate spending in our elections.
It's high time YOU got on board!
SEVEN bills proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision have been introduced in the current Congress -- FOUR just this month, including one introduced last Friday by Rep. Ted Deutch to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.
Here's just a glimpse of the growing national movement!
• In Colorado, the Jamestown Board of Trustees unanimously passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment establishing that only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights and that the First Amendment does not protect unlimited political spending as free speech. And voters in Boulder City passed a ballot measure calling for an amendment to the US Constitution that would state that corporations are not people and reject the legal status of money as free speech.
• In California, the city councils of Fort Bragg and Richmond passed resolutions this year supporting an amendment to ban “corporate personhood.”
• Missoula, Montana voters approved a local ballot referendum urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that clearly states that corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as citizens by a three to one margin.
• Residents of Monroe, Maine passed a Local Self-Governance Ordinance stating that "no corporation doing business within the Town of Monroe shall be recognized as a ‘natural person’ under the United States or Maine Constitutions or laws of the United States or Maine."
And many more resolutions have been introduced in state and local legislative bodies across the country.
Generations of Americans have come together to force much-needed change by amending the U.S. Constitution to expand democracy and protect fundamental rights. With the voice of the voter being increasingly drowned out by unlimited corporate spending in elections, the need has arisen again. Now, it's our generation's turn.
Please speak out now.
Thank you for standing up against corporate power run amok and for Government By the People -- the American Way.
Social Justice: Current Affairs, Business, Politics, and all the reasons in the world to Thrive on Creative Discontent!
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Be Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!
The case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 10-174.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on a federal lawsuit Monday by states and conservation groups trying to force cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Eight states initiated this novel approach. They argued that under traditional common law, power plants were creating a public nuisance, and that state governments had the power to intervene. Eight states were originally involved: California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. When Republican governors took over in New Jersey and Wisconsin, those states withdrew from the case.
The court said that the authority to seek reductions in emissions rests with the Environmental Protection Agency, not the courts.
EPA said that it will issue new regulations by May 2012 to reduce power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas. The Obama administration has already started controlling heat-trapping pollution from automobiles and from some of the largest, and most polluting, industrial plants.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.
The landmark environmental law leaves no room for what Ginsburg described as a parallel track, "control of greenhouse gas emissions by federal judges."
On the other hand, Ginsburg said, that the states and conservation groups can go to federal court under the Clean Air Act if they object to EPA's eventual decision.
The private defendants in the suit are American Electric Power Co. of Ohio, Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia, and Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota. Five of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in America. Four of them are part of the Edison Electric Institute, a major industry group.
If the EPA puts forward a national cap & trade regime – much like say Europe; then you have some good shorts on your investment list above. If they don’t, you are still likely to see stiffer state regulations on emissions and that can go to point of origin – simple meaning -- a dirty coal plant in Utah cannot sell power in California without being penalized.
In any event we can all wheeze, cough, and tear while sucking in some more dirty air.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on a federal lawsuit Monday by states and conservation groups trying to force cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Eight states initiated this novel approach. They argued that under traditional common law, power plants were creating a public nuisance, and that state governments had the power to intervene. Eight states were originally involved: California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. When Republican governors took over in New Jersey and Wisconsin, those states withdrew from the case.
The court said that the authority to seek reductions in emissions rests with the Environmental Protection Agency, not the courts.
EPA said that it will issue new regulations by May 2012 to reduce power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas. The Obama administration has already started controlling heat-trapping pollution from automobiles and from some of the largest, and most polluting, industrial plants.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.
The landmark environmental law leaves no room for what Ginsburg described as a parallel track, "control of greenhouse gas emissions by federal judges."
On the other hand, Ginsburg said, that the states and conservation groups can go to federal court under the Clean Air Act if they object to EPA's eventual decision.
The private defendants in the suit are American Electric Power Co. of Ohio, Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia, and Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota. Five of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in America. Four of them are part of the Edison Electric Institute, a major industry group.
If the EPA puts forward a national cap & trade regime – much like say Europe; then you have some good shorts on your investment list above. If they don’t, you are still likely to see stiffer state regulations on emissions and that can go to point of origin – simple meaning -- a dirty coal plant in Utah cannot sell power in California without being penalized.
In any event we can all wheeze, cough, and tear while sucking in some more dirty air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)