Archive for March, 2012

"Public Citizen Money and Democracy"Stunning Statistics of the Week

$3 billion: The estimated amount that media companies and their local stations will receive for running political ads this year

It’s not too late to launch a drive for a resolution in your town!
Activists across the country are hosting organizing parties next week to spearhead efforts in their cities and towns to pass local resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which gave the green light for corporations to spend unlimited sums to influence elections. Join the campaign! Sign up now to find an organizing party in your area. Or, if there is no organizing party in your area, host one yourself.

Taking it to the SEC
It’s not often that you see a rally outside the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it happened this week. Representatives from Public Citizen, Common Cause and the Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending joined New York City’s public advocate Bill de Blasio in gathering outside the agency to demand that it require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. More than 75,000 people have submitted comments to the SEC on the matter.

Amendment resolutions advance in New York, Alaska and Santa Monica
A resolution supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United is advancing through the New York Legislature. The New York Assembly’s Election Law Committee this week gave its seal of approval. In addition, the Alaska Senate recently approved a similar resolution. The city of Santa Monica has approved a resolution as well.

Continue Reading

This week has showcased a dire need, a need to spotlight the unregulated money overwhelming our democracy. Reform groups, investors, state elected officials and more have "Lisa Gilbert"demanded that Congress and federal agencies do their jobs and make elections transparent to the people voting in them.

First, on Monday morning organizations and investors gathered to urge the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require publicly-traded companies to disclose contributions when they engage in electoral politics. Today, the DISCLOSE Act will come up for a hearing in the United States Senate.

Both SEC rules and congressional action are critical to closing the gaping loopholes in our system left by the Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) decision and ineffective FEC regulations on the disclosure of political spending.

Polls show the public overwhelmingly supports disclosure. According to a New York Times article on a New York Times/CBS News poll released on October 28, 2010, Americans significantly, “favor full disclosure of spending by both campaigns and outside groups.”

Continue Reading

Flickr by Jamie Anderson

Paul Alan Levy

It was disheartening to say the least to hear a Major League Soccer (MLS) team player use abusive language with a ball boy in the middle of a game, but it’s positively shameful that the MLS decided to go after a fan who later posted a small clip of the game on YouTube to further discussion of the widely publicized incident.

There’s no question that the clip was taken from the copyrighted telecast, but there can also be no doubt that the fan is protected by fair use in posting a 20-second clip from a 90-minute game. MLS responded with an abusive DMCA takedown notice that caused the YouTube clip to be removed – an overreaction that boils down to attempting to deny the fan his right to free speech.

Colin Clark, a player for Major League Soccer team Houston Dynamo, made a significant mistake in lashing out at the ball boy at the Seattle Sounders stadium at the March 23 game, using a gay slur because the ball was not delivered directly into the player’s hands, but rather tossed onto the ground for Clark to pick up. Even though Clark issued an apology, the video prompted a widespread discussion among soccer fans, who compared the incident to recent controversies in Europe over racist comments there.

Continue Reading

Photo of a hospital bed.Last week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, an extreme bill that would severely undermine patients’ rights. The vote was 223-181.

We are extremely disappointed. Christine Hines blogged last week about the damaging impact of this bill, which would let the medical industry to go virtually unpunished when patients are harmed or killed by the industry’s negligence or recklessness.

We put together a vote chart (PDF) so you can find out how your representative voted. Here’s the basic breakdown:

Our efforts to thwart H.R. 5 resulted in a robust, bipartisan opposition. Most Democrats voted no, as did 10 Republicans: Amash (R-Mich.), Duncan (R-Tenn.), Garrett (R-N.J.), Gohmert (R-Texas), Griffith (R-Va.), Johnson (Ill.), Poe (R-Texas), Terry (R-Neb.) and Webster (R-Fla.).

Most Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Seven Democrats joined them: Boren (D-Okla.), Cardoza (D-Calif.), Hochul (D-N.Y.), Kissell (D-N.C.), Matheson (D-Utah), Peterson (D-Minn.) and David Scott (D-Ga.).

Four Republicans voted simply “Present”: Broun (R-Ga.), King (R-Iowa), Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Woodall (R-Ga.).

Twenty-three members (11 Republicans and 12 Democrats) did not vote: Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Austria (R-Ohio), Bachus (R-Ala.), Bishop (R-Utah), Bono Mack (R-Calif.), Brown (D-Fla.), Castor (D-Fla.), Chaffetz (R-Utah), Davis (D-Ill.), Duffy (R-Wis.) Gonzalez (D-Texas), Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Jackson (D-Ill.), Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Lee (D-Calif.), Lowey (D-N.Y.), Manzullo (R-Ill.), Marchant (R-Texas), Marino (R-Pa.), McIntyre (D-N.C.), Paul (R-Texas), Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Thompson (D-Miss.).

Follow this link for a full vote chart (PDF).

Share your thoughts about how your representative voted and the outcome of this vote in the comments below.

And let’s make sure the Senate stops this awful bill.

Flickr photo by Nathan & Jenny.

Public Citizen commends the Obama administration for taking the necessary step of appealing the harmful World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against U.S. consumer labeling. In November 2011, a WTO panel ruled that the U.S. country of origin labels on meats (COOL) violated the organization’s rules.

The implications for this ruling are dire, especially in the context of a decades- long battle to ensure that consumers know the source of their meat. After overcoming countless obstacles, from presidential vetoes to adverse Supreme Court rulings in cases brought by food processors, it was only in 2009 that a meaningful country of origin labeling regime was finally implemented.

The legitimacy of the WTO is likely to be further undermined if the organization’s Appellate Body upholds the lower panel ruling. Such an outcome would provide evidence to consumer groups that the WTO allows anti-consumer forces a second (or third) bite at the apple, even when these interests do not succeed in their efforts to undermine consumer safeguards through purely domestic legal and political means.”

The Obama administration is considering expanding some of these anti-consumer rules in the first trade deal it is negotiating – the nine-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. The WTO ruling (and two others in 2011 against dolphin-safe labels on tuna and anti-smoking measures) shows that a new approach to trade agreements is needed – one that puts consumers, the environment and communities first.

Todd Tucker is Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch research director. You can follow the work of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch on Twitter @PCGTW

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.