We all remember that on January 21, 2010 the Supreme Court overturned a restriction that dated back to 1907, when our Republican President Theodore Roosevelt called on Congress to forbid the all-powerful corporations, railroads and national banks from using their money in federal election campaigns. After World War II, Congress extended this ban to labor unions. In 2010, the Republican bloc of the highest court in our land has now ruled that companies have a “free-speech right” to spend as much as they want to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.
In January’s 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative side said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and that the government may not prohibit corporations from spending freely to sway the outcome of federal elections. The outcome of this decision may well have a strong impact on this year’s mid-term elections to Congress. “The 1st Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the court.
Most pundits and election-law experts had predicted that a court decision freeing corporations would send millions of corporate dollars flooding into the autumn races for Congress. And they predicted that Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.
Five justices who were Republican nominees supported the high court’s decision. They include Kennedy and Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Latina Justice Sonia Sotomayor. They supported a dissent written by 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. Speaking from the bench, Justice Stevens labeled the decision, “a radical change in the law … that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions — and the narrow interests they represent — in determining who will hold public office.”
So what the heck does that Supersized-decision have to do with Northstate politics? Well, in our 2nd district alone, it can have many implications.
As the Public Affairs Officer for the Northern Hispanic Latino Coalition, I am occasionally asked questions from our constituency. I usually get questions like, “What is the Hispanic Latino Coalition’s position on Gang activity in Shasta County?” or “What is the Latino Coalition doing about Farm Worker abuses?” or, one of our nightmares, “What can the Latino Coalition do to advocate for a Latina mother of a nursing baby who was domestically and physically abused by her undocumented husband, yet SHE was the one arrested?!
This summer I was asked several times by some of our constituents about what the Latino Coalition is going to do about corruption in our government. Some were complaining about our family law system, some were complaining about big corporations making it difficult on small businesses, and most talked about Washington corruption. But one person got my attention just last week when I was asked, “Why is it so hard for regular people (grassroots candidates) to get elected?” I did not have an answer … So I went on-line to find out more. I began to be refreshed about the Supreme Court allowing large corporate contributions to the election process.
Since most of our Hispanic-Latino constituency tend to vote Democrat, I called the Democratic candidate for the 2nd district office of Mr. Jim Reed, to ask more about his position and if he was going to support the “Fight Washington Corruption” movements and petition campaigns that seem to be simmering.
Like watching sausages being made, I began to think I was getting into something much more than I bargained for.
I spoke with a very pleasant assistant to Mr. Reed, Chrystal Martin. She informed me that “Mr. Reed supports the idea but will not sign, as he has a ‘no pledge’ pledge.” Confused, I asked for clarification. Ms. Martin stated, “My phone has been flooded by “MoveOn (political action campaigners) callers” about this issue. She responded that Wally Herger had been burned in the past by signing several political pledges and that Mr. Reed did not want to make the same mistakes.
Like eating a poorly made sausage, this all began to grow uncomfortably in my mouth.
While chatting with Chrystal I frantically e-hit the MoveOn.org “Pledge,” and after a nice conversation she promised to send me an advance of Mr. Reed’s Op Ed piece due to be released soon. With a punctuality not usually found within the political spectrum, Ms. Martin immediately kept her promise to me and I am enclosing Mr. Reed’s Op Ed piece verbatim for A News Cafe readers who may be interested in this issue.
I will spare you my political commentary until I can learn more about how this Op Ed will translate to Latinos. Meanwhile, I’m off to my fridge for some homemade tortillas and Chorizo!
Alan Ernesto Phillips
PAO, Northern Hispanic Latino Coalition, northernhispaniclatinocoalition.com
Alan Ernesto Phillips is a proud son of Shasta County, a proud father of two daughters, and a local musician. He is a parenting educator, chemical-dependency counselor, victim-awareness counselor and developmental-asset builder and trainer. He also is a Clio and Telly award-winning filmmaker who produced and directed political campaigns for congressmen, senators, governors and one president (Ronald Reagan). His clients also included Coca-Cola, NIKE, CBS News and NOVA documentaries. He is a current board member and public affairs officer for the Northern California Hispanic Latino Coalition.
A News Cafe, founded in Shasta County by Redding, CA journalist Doni Greenberg, is the place for people craving local Northern California news, commentary, food, arts and entertainment.
