It was refreshing to see decisive leadership by President Obama in accepting Gen. McChrystal’s resignation. He highlighted the importance of civilian control saying that we must “hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy.”
Mexico on Tuesday filed a brief in federal court in Arizona supporting a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a tough new immigration law, Mexico’s foreign ministry said.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn SB 1070, a recently passed law due to go into effect late next month, which stipulates that police can ask the residency status of people being investigated for a crime.
“The government of Mexico has requested the court that SB 1070 be declared unconstitutional and that it does not enter into force,” the foreign ministry said in a written statement.
The Mexican government gave its support to the lawsuit filed by a group of civil rights organizations, including the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.
In its brief, Mexico “underscored that it is fundamental and imperative that the human and civil rights of its citizens are duly respected while present in Arizona or in any other state of the United States,” the foreign ministry said.
In filing the brief, Mexico said it was upholding its duty to protect its nationals in the United States and ensure that they are not discriminated against based on their ethnicity.
The case is Friendly House, et al v. Michael B. Whiting, et al.
Yesterday I mentioned Secretary Clinton’s comment in an Ecuadoran interview that the Obama Administration plans to sue Arizona over SB1070.
Well today CBS News reports,
Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.
In an interview with Andrea Bernal of NTN24, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said,
Well, Andrea, first, let me say how pleased I am that I have this chance to talk to you about these and other important issues. President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.
Very promising. However, Reuters reports,
Both the White House and Justice Department declined to confirm or deny the presidential directive.
“The department continues to review the law,” said Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller.
A State Department spokesman did not try to retract Clinton’s remark and noted the issue had been a concern on her trip.
“I defer to the Department of Justice on what legal steps are available,” said spokesman P.J. Crowley. “The president and secretary have said clearly that the administration opposes the Arizona law.”
Of course Gov. Brewer chimed in (PDF of her statement),
“This is no way to treat the people of Arizona,” said Governor Brewer. “To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the Secretary of State is just outrageous.
If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”
Governor Brewer said, “I just visited with the President in the Oval Office about our differences over immigration policy, and the one firm understanding we had was that within two weeks he would provide details of his commitment to deploy National Guard troops to the border. While I am grateful that communications have taken place about a possible visit by Administration staff before the end of the month, there is not yet a confirmed date. More importantly, no information about additional troop and border security enhancements has been provided by the Obama Administration to the citizens of Arizona.”
Did you catch this? This piece of human waste, Seattle PD Detective Shandy Coban, in an effort to find armed robber suspects described as “Hispanic-looking,” was caught on video kicking a man not in cuffs and not under arrest shouting, “You got me? I’m going to beat the fucking Mexican piss out of you homey. You feel me?”
Right after this, the innocent man appearing to wipe his eye, Coban then kicks him in the head with female officer, Mary Woollum, then joining in stomping the man on his leg. They then realize they have the wrong guy and let him go.
This is exactly the kind of case We the People should be outraged about. This isn’t some punk resisting arrest. This was an innocent man minding his own business being assaulted by an idiot with a badge and a gun.
Don’t you just love these cops with daddy issues or whatever their baggage is? Being a truly professional cop requires men and women of a higher caliber and clearly Coban and Woollum are not up to snuff. It’s time to find another line of work.
Because remember…
This one comes via The Raw Story. Three Maryland police were caught beating a student unprovoked. They initially charged that the student had “provoked the beating” by attacking the mounted officers. Then this video emerged… ooops!
K&L Gates, the 10th largest law firm in the United States (per National Law Journal), has published guidelines for their corporate clients in the form of a “Public Policy and Law Alert” titled Citizens United: Questions and Answers. Here we go folks, the legal blueprint from which democracy’s official subversion begins.
The Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United v. FEC released on January 21, 2010 resolved the narrow issue of whether a corporation may make previously prohibited independent expenditures directly advocating for or against a federal candidate. The opinion, however, generated many questions as to its broader implications and new requirements for compliance. Basic answers to those most-often asked questions are provided below, and we are available to answer questions related to specific situations.
1) Will foreign corporations based outside the U.S. or those with a foreign connection now be able to make independent expenditures?
No. The Supreme Court neither considered nor overruled the still-valid portion of existing law that prohibits a “foreign national” from making a direct or indirect contribution to a campaign for federal, state or local election. A foreign national is defined, in part, as “a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.” 2 U.S.C. § 441e; 22 U.S.C. § 611(b); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a)(3) (emphasis added). Foreign nationals are further prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement” in connection with a federal, state or local election. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(f).
2) Will U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations be exempt?
Yes. The definition of “foreign national” exempts any person that is “not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States.” 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2). The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) has determined that this exemption includes a U.S. corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, /* Are you gettin’ this? */ so long as the foreign parent does not finance U.S. political activities and no foreign national participates in any decision to make expenditures. Many of the legislative proposals that “respond” to Citizens United seek to tighten or close this exemption.
3) Will the application of the law apply equally to labor unions?
Yes. The Court’s decision discusses the ban on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions interchangeably, although it stops short of explicitly invalidating the ban for labor unions (as the facts of the case applied only to corporations). In his concurrence, Chief Justice Roberts stated that “Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union.” The FEC has announced that it will no longer enforce statutory prohibitions against independent expenditures by either corporations or labor unions.
4) What information must be disclosed by corporations making independent expenditures?
Existing disclosure and disclaimer requirements remain intact after Citizens United.
Currently, any entity, including a corporation that spends more than $10,000 per year on electioneering communications, must file a disclosure statement with the FEC, sometimes within 24 hours of the date of a communication’s first public dissemination. That disclosure must state who makes the expenditure, the amount, the election to which the communication was directed, and the names of those entities donating $1,000 or more to the entity making the disbursements for that communication. Furthermore, a corporation (or any non-candidate funding an electioneering communication) must state at the end of a television or radio advertisement that “ABC Corporation is responsible for the content of this advertising” and must do so in a clear, direct way pursuant to certain technical requirements.
Disclosure requirements differ based on the type of independent expenditure; however, most independent expenditures must ultimately be reported to the FEC. The FEC has made clear that corporations and labor unions must continue to report their independent expenditures as before.
Practically speaking, corporations will be required to answer for the content of any independent expenditures. In deciding whether to make this type of independent expenditure, a corporation’s board must consider whether it is good business to stand by its political independent expenditures. /* Even if it’s perceived as bad for a company’s image to back one or another candidate there is a way to “hide” as outlined below…. keep reading. */
5) How is “coordination” defined for the purpose of proving whether an expenditure is truly independent?
Problematically, Citizens United places considerable weight on a shaky, unsettled portion of FEC regulations. At the time of the decision, the definition of “coordination” was still under development for determining whether a particular communication is independent, and thus permissible for a corporation to make, or is coordinated, and thus prohibited. On October 8, 2009, the FEC had begun its third round of rulemaking to resolve this precise problem. After the decision, the FEC issued a supplemental notice of rulemaking and sought additional public comment.
As the law now stands, the FEC determines “coordination” for a communication through a multi-prong test determining the source of the payment for the communication, content of the communication and conduct of those entities behind the communication. The existing definition of “coordination” is a communication “made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.”
6) Will corporations be able to deduct political independent expenditures as business expenses?
No. Political expenditures are not currently deductible under the “ordinary and necessary” business expenses, and the Court’s decision in Citizens United has done nothing to change that longstanding rule.
7) What are possible legislative responses?
In just the short time since the decision, the legislative response to this ruling has been considerable. For instance, one Member of Congress has already introduced a constitutional amendment that would restrict all corporations and labor organizations from making independent expenditures. Another proposal would require a corporation’s CEO to appear on an advertisement “approving” its content and declaring the percentage of a corporation’s total treasury spent on that independent expenditure. /* I like that idea. */
Members have also discussed a number of less drastic new prohibitions on corporate speech. For instance, some have argued that the traditional ban on independent expenditures be maintained for corporations which employ or retain Washington lobbyists, have a government contract, or receive government subsidy or bailout funds. Also proposed are corporate governance reforms that would require a corporation to first obtain majority shareholder approval before funding independent political speech.
The most likely proposal to gain bipartisan support is a collection of tougher restrictions on “foreign national” political participation through their U.S. subsidiaries. /* All good legislative ideas */
8 ) Should corporations with PACs now alter their PAC budgets to plan for expenditures in line with this decision?
No. While this decision clears the way for a corporation to make an independent expenditure, such as television or radio advertising, that directly supports or advocates for or against a candidate, a corporation still may not use its general treasury funds to make a direct contribution to a candidate or party. The PAC remains the only method by which a corporation, or rather its donor employees and shareholders, may make a contribution to a candidate. Moreover, the corporate connected PAC could become even more relevant as a candidate could be pressured to raise even more “hard money” than ever before to defend themselves against independent expenditure advertising campaigns.
9) When will FEC issue guidance, and why does it matter?
In the wake of the decision, the FEC has already issued public guidance on which parts of existing law it will no longer enforce, begun new rulemakings and extended others, and instructed corporations and labor unions to continue to report independent expenditures as before. Until the FEC issues guidance or rules outlining additional specifics of compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, as well as clarifies whether any additional restrictions on disclosure may be considered with regards to how an independent expenditure must be reported, a corporation making such expenditures may be at risk of enforcement action by the FEC.
The FEC may consider such regulations for a lengthy period of time. The FEC is engaged in multiple rulemakings related to a separate court ruling, and it recently reopened public comment on its proposed definition of “coordinated.” As such, it may be several months before the FEC completes any rulemakings required by Citizens United. However, increased pressure to have rules in place in advance of the 2010 general election may encourage the FEC to act quickly in resolving uncertainty around its enforcement of Citizens United. For instance, on the day of the decision the FEC announced that it would issue guidance in accordance with the decision “as soon as possible.” The FEC Chairman reiterated his intent to issue expedited guidance at a recent Commission meeting.
10) How will corporations likely take advantage of their opportunity to make independent political expenditures?
Just because a corporation may make an independent direct advocacy expenditure doesn’t mean that it should. Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base. /* Yup, that’s why any rocks that can be used for hiding must be removed by law. */ Moreover, upon the first major corporate-funded public communications airing, media coverage is likely to focus on the corporation’s involvement in the campaign rather than the content of any advocacy.
Therefore, most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny. /* This is a loophole that must be closed by law. I want full disclosure. I really like the idea of a CEO appearing on an ad indicating approval in the same way candidates are required to do that on their own ads now. */
Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in “under-the radar” sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks. Since state and local laws preventing corporate political expenditures will also likely be repealed as a result of Citizens United, small corporations may also become involved in state and local races through regional media.
What a crap decision Citizens United is.
Yesterday there was an editorial in the New York Times discussing what is essentially the Obama Administration’s role as a criminal accessory in covering up the crimes of the Bush Administration. I have no illusions that anybody from the Bush regime will be prosecuted. It is a sad thing to have to admit, but the United States government is an international criminal organization.
There used to be a sense that even the powerful were accountable under law. Nixon hit the road when he saw what was headed his way. Today we see Dick Cheney brazenly admitting his criminal behavior on Sunday morning talk shows. He knows the system is broken and that he knows he is de facto immune from prosecution.
Hope and Change? Forget it!
There are times when governments fight to keep documents secret to protect sensitive intelligence or other vital national security interests. And there are times when they are just trying to cover up incompetence, misbehavior or lawbreaking.
Last week, when a British court released secret intelligence material relating to the torture allegations of a former Guantánamo prisoner, Binyam Mohamed, it was clear that the second motive had been in play when both the Bush and the Obama administrations and some high-ranking British officials tried to prevent the disclosure.
Mr. Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, is a victim of President George W. Bush’s extraordinary rendition program, under which foreigners were kidnapped and flown to other countries for interrogation and torture. He was subjected to physical and psychological abuse in Pakistan, Morocco and a C.I.A.-run prison outside Kabul before being sent to Guantánamo. His seven-year ordeal ended when he was freed last February.
At issue in the British court were seven paragraphs derived from American intelligence documents. The Bush administration claimed the material contained top-secret information and threatened to cut off intelligence sharing with Britain if it was released. Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton repeated those threats, despite President Obama’s campaign promises of openness and the rule of law in his detainee policy.
The paragraphs contained no real secrets. Mainly, the document — a summary of information that American intelligence provided to Britain’s security service, MI5 — echoes previous disclosures by the C.I.A. and Mr. Mohamed’s harrowing account of his ordeal.
But what it does contain is the assessment by British intelligence that his treatment violated legal prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners.
A spokesman for President Obama expressed “deep disappointment” in the court’s decision, which might have been shocking except that Mr. Obama has refused to support any real investigation of Mr. Bush’s lawless detention policies. His lawyers have tried to shut down court cases filed by victims of those policies, with the same extravagant claims of state secrets and executive power that Mr. Bush made.
The full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is weighing the Justice Department’s attempt to shut down a civil lawsuit brought by Mr. Mohamed and four others — on a flimsy national security claim that has been rendered even flimsier by the British court.
Then there is the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was seized at Kennedy Airport by federal agents acting on bad information. After being harshly interrogated, he was sent to Syria, where he was tortured. In November, Mr. Arar’s civil suit was dismissed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially bought the Bush administration’s bogus national security claims, extended under Mr. Obama. Mr. Arar has appealed to the Supreme Court. Rather than fight, the Obama administration should offer an apology and a monetary settlement like Canada did three years ago.
It has always been true that a real accounting of the Bush administration’s abuses is vital if Mr. Obama truly wants to repair them and try to prevent them from recurring. It is more important than ever now, when the Republican right is trying hard to turn the clock back to those dark times by painting Democrats as “soft on terror” during an election year.
We knew there would never be any accountability once the newly elected Speaker Pelosi stated that impeachment is “off the table.” Just like that, despite whatever the evidence showed, we decided as a country that the president was above the law. The courts offer no remedy. The powerful protect the powerful and We the People don’t seem to have any recourse.
Perhaps progressives should stay home, let the Republicans have it all back. They will inevitability burn the house down and then finally at last We the People will wake up. What a sad state of affairs that it would have to take that much to rouse the populace.
Bit by bit justice is coming for Joe Arpaio, a man not fit to hold a badge in our America.
Checkout this edition of News With Nezua. He provides a nice overview of this thug in Arizona.
While you’re at it, join the Facebook group he references in this video, People Against Sherrif Joe Arpaio.
