HomeMy WebLinkAbout123-12 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 123-12
A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE "MOVE TO AMEND" CAMPAIGN BY
JOINING WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY TO
DEFEND DEMOCRACY BY AMENDING THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE ONLY HUMAN BEINGS, NOT
CORPORATIONS, HAVE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has asserted by a five to four majority that
corporations have the same free speech rights as human beings; and
WHEREAS, United States citizen human beings have and should continue to be valued
more and enjoy greater inalienable and constitutional free speech rights than corporations,
business associations or unions; and
WHEREAS, money is not speech and should be able to be constitutionally regulated as
to political contributions and its use in political campaigns by candidates or other entities
attempting to influence political decisions or votes.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses
its support of the national "Move To Amend" campaign to defend democracy by amending the
United States Constitution to ensure only human beings, not corporations or other associations,
have constitutionally protected free speech rights and to reject the premise that money is
"speech".
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests
that Arkansas legislators on the State and Federal level also support an appropriate United States
Constitutional Amendment to ensure the First Amendment's Free Speech rights protect real
people, rather than corporations, associations, unions or other entities.
PASSED and APPROVED this 5th day of June, 2012.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
•
By: rtca +°°` K/ R,p,,,,
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Trea • • • • . e . •SG%
..,:•_\,•"G\\ Y O/"
.<c`
r.c.)•
FAYETT
EVILLE •
•
•moo
%•'7 •97'KAISISP®, !
sii>s,:G DOI`1�G�b`�b
AGENDA REQUEST
FOR: COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2012
FROM:
ALDERMAN MATTHEW PETTY
ALDERMAN MARK KINION
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT:
A Resolution To Support The "Move To Amend" Campaign By Joining With Other
Communities Around The Country To Defend Democracy By Amending The United
States Constitution To Ensure Only Human Beings, Not Corporations, Have
Constitutionally Protected Free Speech Rights
APPROVED FOR AGENDA:
01.4i
Matt w Petty, AldjtitAL
Mar
inion,
an
Date
-
Date
City Attorney (as to form) Date
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE "MOVE TO AMEND" CAMPAIGN BY
JOINING WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY TO
DEFEND DEMOCRACY BY AMENDING THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE ONLY HUMAN BEINGS, NOT
CORPORATIONS, HAVE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has asserted by a five to four majority that
corporations have the same free speech rights as human beings; and
WHEREAS, United States citizen human beings have and should continue to be valued
more and enjoy greater inalienable and constitutional free speech rights than corporations,
business associations or unions; and
WHEREAS, money is not speech and should be able to be constitutionally regulated as
to political contributions and its use in political campaigns by candidates or other entities
attempting to influence political decisions or votes.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses
its support of the national "Move To Amend" campaign to defend democracy by amending the
United States Constitution to ensure only human beings, not corporations or other associations,
have constitutionally protected free speech rights and to reject the premise that money is
"speech".
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests
that Arkansas legislators on the State and Federal level also support an appropriate United States
Constitutional Amendment to ensure the First Amendment's Free Speech rights protect real
people, rather than corporations, associations, unions or other entities.
PASSED and APPROVED this 5th day of June, 2012.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
Under the Supreme Court: High court agrees to consider
corporate free speech post -Citizen United
April 9, 2012
Nicole Debevec
United Press International
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider taking
another bite of the corporate political free speech
apple recently, accepting a petition asking justices
to summarily overturn a Montana Supreme Court
decision petitioners say flies in the face of Citizens
United.
corporate independent expenditures. Thus, the
Montana Supreme Court's decision constitutes an
attempt to force the reconsideration of Citizens
United simply because it disagrees with the
opinion.
"That effort should be rejected summarily."
In March, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Stephen Breyer argued the Montana case
would give the Supreme Court a chance to rethink
Citizens United.
In upholding a ban on corporate independent
expenditures in state elections, the Montana "A petition for certiorari will give the Court an
justices determined that "unlike Citizens United opportunity to consider whether, in light of the
this case concerns Montana law, Montana elections huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates'
and it arises from Montana history." allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold
sway," the statement said.
That ruling, the petition said, raises the question for Ginsburg and Breyer said in their statement lower
courts were still bound by the 2010 ruling that
freed corporations and labor unions to spend as
much as they wished on campaigns if they did so
Amendment, when the ban applies to state, rather independently of candidates. The court put on hold
than federal, elections." the state court ruling upholding a Montana law
similar to the federal law nullified in Citizens
Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is United, at least until an appeal is decided.
the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision two years ago
the U.S. Supreme Court to consider: "Whether
Montana is bound by the holding of Citizens
United, that a ban on corporate independent
political expenditures is a violation of the First
that effectively ended the restrictions on political
contributions from the general funds of
corporations and unions.
Most of the money spent in this election cycle is by
the so-called "Super PACs," political action
committees formed to make independent
expenditures promoting or opposing a certain
In asking for a summary judgment, the petition candidate and that have gained great traction and
(American Tradition Partnership, et al., vs. Bullock,appeal since Citizen United was handed down.
et al.) by two Montana corporations said the state's
In their petition, the corporations said the Montana
decision was in conflict with the Supreme Court's
pouring into election campaigns, among other Citizens United holding that corporations could not
be banned from doing core political speech and the
things. The money isn't coming from corporations,
but people, the petition argued, and people have Courts reasoning that the independence of such
been free to spend pretty much as they see fit since speech (through super PACs) eliminated risk of
1976. corrupting candidates.
top court was wrong in its reasoning about the
origin of the flow of the vast sums of money
"The core holding of Citizens United," the petition
argued, "is that the independence of independent
expenditures means that they pose no cognizable
quid -pro -quo corruption risk and no other
cognizable governmental interest justifies banning
A lower court in Montana relied on Citizens United
in declaring the Corrupt Practices Act
unconstitutional, but the state's Supreme Court
overturned that decision Dec. 30, ruling the U.S.
Supreme Court campaign spending decision didn't
conflict with the state's law because it was federal,
not state.
James Bopp Jr. of The Bopp Law Firm in Terre
Haute, Ind., and lead counsel for the corporations,
said, "If Montana can ban core political speech
because of Montana's unique characteristics, free
speech will be seriously harmed."
He said speakers would be silenced because of
corrupt activities more than 100 years ago or
because Montana candidates typically don't spend
much on their campaigns, Legal Newsline said.
In its petition, the corporations said reconsidering
Citizens United "based on the facts proposed for
limiting core political speech would pose grave
constitutional dangers to free speechand
association," the petition read. "Consequently,
said Jim Dean, the organization's chairman. "This
campaign, courageously headed by Montana's
Attorney General Steve Bullock, demands that the
Supreme Court address [its] decision that allowed
undisclosed amounts of money to flow into our
electoral process. Corporations are not people and
ordinary citizens should not be drowned out of
democracy."
Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the Brennan
Center for Justice at New York University's School
of Law, also argued for the Supreme Court to
uphold Montana's ban, saying the matter before it
gives the justices a chance to review the "real-
world consequences" of Citizens United and "the
devastating effect it has had on our democracy,"
Legal Newsline said.
summary reversal is appropriate. "The Montana Supreme Court was right to uphold
In the filing, Bopp urges the Court to overturn the state's law banning corporate money in
Montana's ban and to reverse the ruling by the state elections. The state's experience with corruption;
Supreme Court that upheld it, the state's Corrupt and the flood of super PAC spending today, makes
Practices Act, which bars corporate contributions in clear that corporate spending in elections can give
state political campaigns. rise to the appearance and reality of corruption,"
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock Skaggs said in a statement.
expressed mixed feelings about the U.S. Supreme However, the petitioners said Citizens United hasn't
Court's decision to stay the Montana law been burdensome.
"At the end of the day, the Citizens United decision "Citizens United has not proven unworkable, as
dealt with a completely different electoral system -- evidenced by those who have exercised their liberty
the federal elections and federal laws," he said on under it," the petition said. "Lower courts, except
MSNBC. "But the vast majority of elections are at for the [Montana Supreme Court], have uniformly
the state and local level." followed this court's holding, and legislatures and
"There are real differences there," he said. "That's government agencies, with few exceptions, have
what we pushed, and I think that the court would implemented the protections of Citizens United."
recognize that." Perhaps the most notable objection to the ruling
Just last week, Democracy for America said it was President Obama's comments during the 2010
began a new campaign designed to take apart the State of the Union address, when he remarked,
Citizens United decision by taking on the ruling "With all due deference to separation of powers,
through the court system and highlighting Bullock's last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of
case before the U.S. Supreme Court. law that I believe will open the floodgates for
special interests -- including foreign corporations --
The advocacy group's campaign calls on attorneys to spend without limit in our elections."
general from across the United States to sign onto
an amicus brief -- or friend -of -the -court brief -- More recently, Sen. John McCain, R -Ariz., co -
documenting the need to overturn the 2010 sponsor of legislation that limited how much
Supreme Court decision, Democracy for America individuals could contribute to political campaigns,
said in a release. predicted "major scandals" would be the result of
the more prominent role of super PACS that Citizen
"Citizens United corrupts our democratic process," United allowed to foster, The Hill reported.
"What the Supreme Court did is a combination of much money washing around, too much of it we
arrogance, naivete and stupidity the likes of which Idon't know who's behind it and too much
have never seen," McCain said. "I promise you, corruption associated with that kind of money."
there will be huge scandals because there's too
Places that have already passed this as an ordinance or
resolution:
Citizens Initiative
1. Boulder, CO 1 Citizens Initiative
2. Dane County, WI' Citizens Initiative
3. Falmouth, MA Town Meeting' Citizens Initiative
4. Madison, WI 1 Citizens Initiative
5. Missoula, MT 1 Citizens Initiative
6. Oak Park Township, IL 1 Citizens Initiative
7. West Allis, WI 1 Citizens Initiative
Municipal Government Resolution
1. Albany, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
2. Albany, NY City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
3. Albany, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
4. Arcata, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
5. Asheville, NC City Council j Municipal Government Resolution
6. Athens, OH 1 Municipal Government Resolution
7. Barnet, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
8. Berkeley, CA 1 Municipal Government Resolution
9. Bolton, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
10. Brandon, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
11. Brattleboro, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
12. Brighton, NY Town Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
13. Bristol, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
14. Bryson City, NC Board of Alderpersons 1 Municipal Government Resolution
15. Buffalo, NY City Council j Municipal Government Resolution
16. Burlington, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
17. Calais, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
18. Carrboro, NC Board of Aldermen1 Municipal Government Resolution
19. Chapel Hill, NC Town Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
20. Charlotte, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
21. Chester, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
22. Chico, CA City Council j Municipal Government Resolution
23. Chittenden, VT Town Meeting1 Municipal Government Resolution
24. Corvallis, OR City Council Municipal Government Resolution
25. Craftsbury, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
26. Danby, NY City Council 'Municipal Government Resolution
27. Duluth, MN City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
28. East Montpelier, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
29. Eugene, OR City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
30. Fairfax, CA City Council1 Municipal Government Resolution
31. Fayston, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
32. Flagstaff, AZ City Council 'Municipal Government Resolution
33. Fletcher, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
34. Fort Bragg, CA City Council 'Municipal Government Resolution
35. Franklin, NC City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
36. Granville, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
37. Greensboro, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
38. Hardwick, VT Town Meeting !Municipal Government Resolution
39. Hartford, CT City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
40. Hartford, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
41. Hartland, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
42. Highlands, NC Town Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
43. Hinesburg, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
44. Ithaca, NY Common Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
45. Jamestown, CO City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
46. Jefferson County, WA Board of County Commissioners 1 Municipal Government Resolution
47. Jericho, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
48. Key West, FL City Commission 1 Municipal Government Resolution
49. Lancaster, PA City Council l Municipal Government Resolution
50. Leverett, MA Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
51. Lincoln, MA Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
52. Lincoln, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
53. Los Altos Hills, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
54. Marina, CAI Municipal Government Resolution
55. Marlboro, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
56. Marshfield, VT Town Meeting I Municipal Government Resolution
57. Middletown Springs, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
58. Monkton, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
59. Montgomery, VT Town Meeting' Municipal Government Resolution
60. Montpelier, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
61. Moretown, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
62. Mountain View, CA City Council l Municipal Government Resolution
63. Mt Holly, VT Town Meeting !Municipal Government Resolution
64. Nevada City, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
65. Newbury, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
66. Newfane, VT Town Meeting] Municipal Government Resolution
67. Newport, OR City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
68. Norwich, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
69. Ojai, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
70. Orange County, NC Board of Commissioners Municipal Government Resolution
71. Orlando, FL City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
72. Peru, VT Town Meeting! Municipal Government Resolution
73. Petaluma, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
74. Plainfield, VT Town Meeting 'Municipal Government Resolution
75. Point Arena, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
76. Port Townsend, WA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
77. Portland, ME City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
78. Portland, OR City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
79. Pueblo, CO City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
80. Putney, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
81. Randolph, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
82. Redlands, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
83. Richmond, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
84. Richmond, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
85. Ripton, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
86. Rochester, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
87. Roxbury, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
88. Rutland City, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
89. Rutland Town, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
90. Santa Cruz, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
91. Santa Fe, NM City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
92. Seattle, WA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
93. Sharon, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
94. Shelburne, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
95. Shrewsbury, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
96. South Burlington, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
97. South Miami, FL City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
98. South Robertson Neighborhood Council (Los Angeles, CA)1 Municipal Government
Resolution
99. Starksboro, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
100. Sudbury, VT Town Meeting Municipal Government Resolution
101. Telluride, CO Town Council 1Municipal Government Resolution
102. Thetford Center, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
103. Thousand Oaks, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
104. Tunbridge, VT Town Meeting Municipal Government Resolution
105. Underhill, VT Town Meeting Municipal Government Resolution
106. Waitsfield, VT Town Meeting Municipal Government Resolution
107. Walden, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
108. Waltham, VT Town Meeting f Municipal Government Resolution
109. Warren, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
110. West Haven, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
111. West Hollywood, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
112. Williamstown, VT Town Meeting Municipal Government Resolution
113. Williston, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
114. Windsor, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
115. Winooski, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
116. Woodbury, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
117. Woodstock, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
118. Worcester, VT Town Meeting 1 Municipal Government Resolution
119. Yachats, OR City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
120. Yarmouth, MA City Council1 Municipal Government Resolution
State
1. Vermont State Legislature 1 State
Ordinance
1. Barnstead, NH 1 Ordinance
2. Blaine Township, PA 1 Ordinance
3. Donegal, PA 1 Ordinance
4. Essex County Democratic Committee' Ordinance
5. Humboldt County, CAI Ordinance
6. Lehman, PA 1 Ordinance
7. Licking, PA 1 Ordinance
8. Monroe, ME 1 Ordinance
9. Montgomery County, VA 1 Ordinance
10. Mt Shasta, CAI Ordinance
11. Newtown, PA 1 Ordinance
12. Nottingham, NH 1 Ordinance
13. Packer, PA j Ordinance
14. Pittsburgh, PA 1 Ordinance
15. Porter, PA 1 Ordinance
16. Shapleigh, ME 1 Ordinance
17. Van Etten, NY 1 Ordinance
18. Wayne, PA j Ordinance
19. Windsor, PA j Ordinance
Places that have passed a similar ordinance/resolution
1. Northfield Township, IL 1 Citizens Initiative
Municipal Government Resolution
1. Los Angeles, CA City Council j Municipal Government Resolution
2. Lynn, MA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
3. Marin County, CA Board of Supervisors 1 Municipal Government Resolution
4. Newburyport, MA Town Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
5. Northampton, MA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
6. Oakland, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
7. San Francisco, CA City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
8. Tampa Bay, FL City Council 1 Municipal Government Resolution
9. Taos, NM City Council !Municipal Government Resolution
10. Taos, NM County Board of Commissioners I Municipal Government Resolution
State
1. Alaska State Senate I State
Info from movetoamend.org/resolutions-map
5/5/12
Mansasgov
Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel
Agencies 1 Online Services 1 State Directory
Espanol 137 I r31 Text I ma
About the Office:
News Releases 1 Consumer Alerts
l®®)
What is RSS?
Contact Us
Consumers. * Crime and Safety
Monday, May 21, 2012
MCDANIEL ASKS SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER CAMPAIGN FINANCE DECISION
LITTLE ROCK - Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and 22 other attorneys general today asked
the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a 2010 decision that eliminated federal restrictions on
independent political spending by corporations.
In an amicus brief, McDaniel said the decision in the Citizens United case should be revisited by
the Court. The states shared with the Court concerns that unrestricted independent campaign
expenditures may distort political races, promote corruption or require corporate shareholders to
fund political communication that they oppose.
"The Citizens United decision opened the door for corporations and labor unions to secretly
spend as much as they want, whenever they want, on political issues," McDaniel said. "I believe
in reasonable contribution limits with transparent reporting requirements so that the people can
know who is financing candidates and issues. The Citizens United case has destroyed those
concepts."
The amicus brief was submitted in a Montana case that involves whether Citizens United should
pertain to state and local elections. In an order issued earlier this year related to the Montana
case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the experience in Montana and elsewhere makes it
"exceedingly difficult" to argue that independent corporate expenditures "do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption."
In the brief, the attorneys general argue that, under Citizens United, there is a higher risk that
"nonresident corporations with discrete and well-defined interests will dominate campaign
spending in state and local election contests," if applied to states.
The case is American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Bullock, 11-1179.
#t#
Phone:(501)082-2007 or 1-800-482-8982
Pnvacv Policy 1 Accessibility Policy 1 Security Statement 1 Site Mao
t5 2009 Arkansas Attorney General Office. All Rights Reserved.
Connect With Dustin
Press Room