THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 18 - SHE VOTES TO MAINTAIN CORPORATE MONEY'S CORRUPTING INFLUENCE IN ELECTIONS.

Twice before this blog has written about H.R. 5175 the DISCLOSE ACT. First on May 26th in a blog about the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Next, on June 4th in a blog about Judicial Review and this bill.

H.R. 5175, known as the DISCLOSE Act, (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Elections Act). The issue here is simple. Does Lynn Jenkins stand for the people or Corporate wealth? She stands for those fat cats she's been voting to protect since she got to Congress. Lynn Jenkins voted against real people and for the fiction of the Corporation as a person on roll call 391.

H.R. 5175 - THE DISCLOSE ACT & JUDICIAL REVIEW

Representative Chris Van Hollen

The House is moving toward consideration of H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE),  I expect the Rule Committee will resume its work to bring the bill to the floor after the break. The bill was placed on the Union Calendar, a separate calendar in the House for bills dealing with money issues, on May 25th.

H.R. 5175 was introduced by Representative Chris Van Hollen, [D] Md. Senator Charles Schumer [D] NY has introduced related legislation in the Senate, S.3295.

For a synopsis of the bill refer back to this blog's posting on May 26th, H.R. 5175, CONGRESS ANSWERS THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN "CITIZENS UNITED."

Today I want to focus on Section 401 of the proposed DISCLOSE Act. This is the section where the Congress confers tells us where and how we can sue if we don't like the legislation. Remember the posting about Hui v. Casteneda? Okay, that was yesterday's post! In that case the Supreme Court ruled that Hui had immunity from prosecution by Casteneda on the alleged charges in the civil case, as those questions were presented to the Court. Hui won because the Congress limited jurisdiction to sue. H.R. 5175 has a similar clause but limiting venue, where a case may be brought.

Section 401(a) (1) contains special rules for lawsuits brought on Constitutional grounds. First, original jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. By implication, then, appellate jurisdiction will lay with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Thinking back to the Hui case, you will remember that the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a dispute between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Section 401 forecloses the possibility that the Supreme Court will take a Constitutional challenge because of a dispute between different districts of the Courts of Appeal.

A copy of any complaint filed under Section 401 (a) (1) must under Section (a) (2) be delivered to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. This is delivery, not service. The distinction being that the law will require the House and the Senate to be given notice of the suit, Service is made upon litigants to the dispute. This section anticipates that the House or the Senate may want to intervene in either the trial proceedings in the Federal District Court or the appellate proceedings in a proceeding in the Federal Court of Appeals.

Section 401 (a) (3) provides for expedited proceedings. Under this section the courts must act with dispatch. The section says: "It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal."

The possibility of delay could mean either that those who have a right to voice their opinions through massive monetary infusions in the electoral process will be denied. The opposite is also true. Delay could mean that money will continue to gush, thanks to Citizens United, and pollute the American electoral process. The Congress recognizes that these disputes need to be quickly resolved.

Section 401 (b) speaks to the issue of the Congress intervening in a case involving a Constitutional challenge to this statute. Each and every Member of Congress, including Delegates and Resident Commissioners, as well as each and every Senator will have standing to sue by intervention. It does not matter if a Representative or Senator wants to sue in support of or in opposition of the party who filed the suit. The individual Representatives or Senators can take adverse sides in the suit.

For judicial economy the courts may make rules providing those with similar positions to file joint papers or be represented by a single attorney at oral argument. The sheer number of both houses of the Congress make this a sensible provision.

Any Member of Congress, House or Senate, may bring suit to challenge the constitutionality of the DISCLOSE Act. Those lawsuits must also comply with the special rules set forth in Section 101 (a). There will be no special treatment or exceptions for Representatives and Senators.

H.R. 5175, CONGRESS ANSWERS THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN "CITIZENS UNITED"

This past January the Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and partially overruled McConnell v, Federal Election Commission with its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

That decision opened the flood gates for corporate money to pollute the American political process. H.R. 5175 - the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, is poised at the Rules Committee on its way to a floor vote. H.R. 5175 was sponsored by Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen, with 114 cosponsers.

Justice Kennedy

Much of what Justice Kennedy said in his majority opinion in Citizen's United makes sense to me. I love the First Amendment. I am a strong advocate for free speech. I accept the proposition that in elections, more speech is always better than less speech. The problem I have with Citizen's United is the legal fiction of a corporation being a "person" and entitled to speak on electoral matters.

Corporations don't have a soul to save or a butt to kick, all you can do is hit them in the pocketbook. Corporations seem to be a lot like Missouri's Mules. In order to get their attention you have to whack them in the head, or that other end.

The catastrophe continuing to unfold in the Gulf of Mexico is a perfect example of why Citizen's United doesn't make sense. The cozy relationship between bureaucrats and the Oil Industry ended up with an unsafe well being drilled. Now shall we let British Petroleum, Halliburton, and other energy conglomerates buy a Congress, or a Congress and a White House? The cost of purchasing politicians is less expensive than drilling safely, or really paying all the extended costs of this crisis.

H.R. 5175 tries to salvage the Federal Campaign Act of 1971. It makes a determined effort. Under the bill government contractors will be prohibited from making campaign contributions in federal elections. Foreign corporations are also banned from making contributions. Campaign finance disclosures are tightened by H.R. 5175. The bill clarifies, using the "reasonable person" standard, of a clearly identifiable candidate.

Rachel Maddow

In a Rachel Maddow like "Moment of Geek", the bill requires that persons required to file a report after making a campaign contribution are then required to "electronically file" reports after making subsequent contributions. The bill presumes that the "internets" are working. Or maybe the Congress is privy to some new technology, perhaps an "FEC REPORT AP" for your smart phone? Well the reports have to be "searchable, sortable, and downloadable." I can just feel the famous Maddow glee!

The bill is technical. It is a primer for the FEC to study and employ in the wake of Citizen's United, It just isn't enough for me. It will still be challenged because of the dopey rule that corporations are persons. That's hogwash!

My idea is to amend the Constitution saying that only registered voters can make campaign donations, of any nature, to candidates for federal office. Only corporations whose primary business is the "news business" may make endorsements for candidates in federal elections.

The only people who should have a voice in campaigns and elections will be registered voters with skin in the game. No Unions, no Chambers of Commerce, No associations of lawyers, doctors or Indian Chiefs, no hospitals or insurance companies, no churches, temples or synagogues, neither bowling leagues, taverns, or civic organizations. And, Mr. Justice Kennedy, no PACs.

Justice Kennedy displayed a rare disconnect with reality and the magnitude of influence created by corporate cash in his obiter dictum in Citizen's United. Kennedy noted that out of the millions of corporations only about 2000 had trekked the arduous path to set up a PAC. Mr. Justice Kennedy! Get real! Only the wealthiest corporations set up PACs. Kennedy has blindly compared Fortune 500 corporations to your janitor's closely held family corporation. Kennedy clearly mixed his applesauce in with his chicken manure, yuck!

The Senate version of this bill is S. 3295.