LITTLETON — Money is the culprit of most problems in Washington, at least in Vera Cohen’s view.
So, when the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on corporate campaign spending in 2010, a frustrated Cohen began scouring for ways to limit corporate influence on democracy. The clinical social worker would then find tens of thousands of upset Americans coming together under Move to Amend, a Eureka, Calif.-based coalition of organizations and activists who share a common goal: Passing a constitutional amendment that would override the court ruling.
The seemingly daunting mission has galvanized people across the country, sending Massachusetts supporters on a signature-collection drive to petition for a ballot question that would call for legislators to push for the constitutional amendment.
Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, and Rep. Cory Atkins, D-Concord are trying to urge the Legislature to advocate for the constitutional amendment through a nonbinding resolution.
And voters across the Bay State will soon hear more about the movement as they will be asked at town meetings to support the resolutions calling for their lawmakers to work toward the constitutional amendment. In some cases, these town meeting proposals come from those who have never participated in Move to Amend events and aren’t known to the coalition. Cohen, for one, has not been directly involved in the coalition, but her enthusiasm for the cause helped her persuade her friends and neighbors
to sign the papers to put the proposal in the warrant.
“They are spontaneously put in by people,” Lee Ketelson, an Acton resident who is part of the Greater Boston Chapter of Move to Amend, said about town meeting articles.
The mushrooming grassroots activism reflects the concern among many Americans about big-money influence in selection of political leaders, according to Frank Talty, political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Talty predicts presidential campaign ads this year will be the most negative yet as he expects both Barack Obama and the Republican nominee to turn to political action committees or Super PACs. Super PACs can run any ads for candidates of their choosing without the politicians approving them.
“So, after this year’s election, if there is a motivation in places like Massachusetts to do something to overturn the Supreme Court decision, it will probably peak,” Talty said. “If it doesn’t happen after this election, it will probably never happen.”
About 18 communities in Massachusetts will vote or have just voted on a constitutional amendment resolution at a town meeting, according to Ketelson. They include Littleton, Concord, Reading, Winchester, Brookline and Needham in addition to several towns in Western Massachusetts and elsewhere. All of the resolutions say the townspeople want a constitutional amendment declaring “corporations are not persons.” This is because the Supreme Court, in its 5-4 ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, defined that corporations are the same as people in their right to free speech, allowing them to make unlimited political spending.
There are those who believe that an ability to sway financially influential entities and gain their backings is a necessary skill for a politician to lead the country, and thus the free-market approach should apply to electoral process, according to Talty. Others believe people won’t have equal chance at political participation if corporations are allowed to influence the electoral process.
In a 7News/Suffolk University polling of likely general election voters conducted between Feb. 11 and 15 this year, 467 people, or 81 percent of 600 voters surveyed, said they were opposed to the Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions. Seventy-eight people, or 13 percent, said they support the ruling and another 37 people were undecided.
Atkins said many constituents had expressed their concerns about the outcome of the Citizens United case before she decided to cosponsor the nonbinding resolution that Eldridge had proposed.
The Concord Board of Selectmen proposed the resolution for town meeting so the residents could express their opinions on it, board Chairwoman Elise Woodward said, adding that the board is not taking a position on it.
“The Supreme Court decision is far too dangerous,” Atkins said. “It has the capacity to absolutely destroy democracy that I wanted a vehicle to keep the discussion going.”
John Hill, spokesman for the Greater Boston chapter of Move to Amend, shares Atkins’ sentiment.
“The Supreme Court ruling is only the latest demonstration of how corporations dominate our political and legal system,” Hill said. “I’m working on this issue because I believe this is the best way to restore democracy to our country.”
Ketelson, former New England director for Clean Water Action, a national organization that promotes clean water and pollution prevention, said she knows firsthand how ordinary citizens have slowly lost their voice in the face of corporate influence on politics over the past three decades.
“We used to be able to get organized, talk to legislators and win better environmental laws,” Ketelson said. Now, “We can show the majority (of voters supporting an initiative) and still can’t make the bills move.”
Eldrige said he has seen “dramatic increases” in the number of corporate lobbyists on Beacon Hill over the years. With the Supreme Court decision, casino developers and pharmaceutical corporations pushing for certain policies won’t even have to hire lobbyists because they can make direct, ulimited campaign contributions, Eldridge said.
Ketelson said voters are fed up and are willing to do whatever it takes to change the political system.
“I have never seen this much spontaneous activism of people,” Ketelson said of the Move to Amend movement, adding that the coalition that started with one staff member now has 90 affiliates across the country, including three in Massachusetts.
Talty said there are two different ways to have the court ruling overturned: A constitutional amendment; and retrying the case when there is a turnover of Supreme Court justices.
A constitutional amendment requires several steps, with the first one being a two-thirds majority approval from both the House and the Senate in Washington. State legislatures would only then have the chance to ratify the amendment. Three-quarters of the 50 states must ratify it, or the amendment would go away.
The alternative process is to call for a constitutional convention. A convention would be organized if two-thirds of the 50 state legislatures request it. But, an amendment would still require ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. There have been attempts to call for a convention on different issues in the past, but the efforts were never successful, according to Talty.
Atkins said passing a constitutional amendment is a daunting task and has been done before, including lowering of voting age to 18. In 2006, the initiative to pass a constitutional amendment to ban burning of the American flag failed in Senate by one vote, Talty said.
Ketelson said 17 towns in Massachusetts have already adopted the resolution at Town Meeting.
There have also been some City Councils that have done just that, including Boston. Eldridge and Atkins said the supports from town meetings do help raise awareness about the issue and compel the legislators to support the resolution.