State Senate Approves Citizens United Study Committee

By voice vote today, the state Senate moved New Hampshire a step closer to supporting action to be taken to overturn the controversial Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that overturned regulations on entities spending money on elections.

SB 136 forms a study committee to look at the issue as well as other Constitutional amendments before the U.S. Congress and issue a report by Nov. 1, 2015.

State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, praised the vote saying she was glad that her colleagues had agreed that it was time to do something about the corrupting influence of money in politics.

“In 2014 alone, over $49 million was spent on NH Congressional races from outside groups, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens,” she said. “Fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy and the consequences of the Citizens United ruling on our elections must be addressed. The issue of such large amounts of money influencing our elections is not a partisan one; it affects all of us. That’s why 67 of our municipalities have passed warrant articles calling for action on this very serious issue which threatens our democracy.”

Advocates supporting the amendment to overturn Citizens United also commended the vote.

Jonah Minkoff-Zern, the co-director of Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign, said, “We applaud them and urge members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to follow suit and pass SB 136 as amended. This reflects what the people of New Hampshire have been urging their elected officials to do in response to the surge of outside money being spent on state and federal elections.”

Paul Brochu of Stamp Stampede, another organization working on the effort, called the decision “a huge step forward” in making the Granite State the 17th state to call for a constitutional amendment.

“All across New Hampshire, people from both parties are saying they’ve had enough of Big Money in politics,” he said. “It’s been amazing to watch all these people – many of whom have never been politically active before in their lives – suddenly step forward and lead their hometowns to take a stand and say the Constitution should be amended.”

According to Wikipedia, the Citizens United case stems from an organization that filed a complaint under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law with the Federal Elections Commission over the release and distribution of “Fahrenheit 9/11” in June 2004, saying that the film violated the law because it advocated the defeat of President George W. Bush in the middle of a primary election cycle. Advertising the film so close to an election violated the prohibition that corporate and union expenditures advocating a political position or opinion could not be made 30 days before a primary.

The FEC later dismissed the complaint.

The next year, Citizens United began to create its own documentary films and in 2008, created one about Hillary Clinton called “Hillary: The Movie.” Television stations, however, refused to sell advertising to promote the film due to regulations under McCain-Feingold. The organization challenged the law but a lower court upheld it.

Citizens United then took its complaint to the Supreme Court and in 2010, it overruled the lower court ruling, stating that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech by limiting the independent communications of organizations, corporations, associations, or unions.

The move to amend would propose an amendment to the Constitution establishing that money is not speech and that human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights.