Stiles' Decision Critical To Citizens United Repeal

State Senator Nancy Stiles is once more in the political spotlight.

In the roundly-criticized Citizens United decision (1/21/2010), the United States Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people do. As a result, corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. In addition, these unlimited funds can be channeled through independent organizations that don't need to reveal their sources. Thus, the American public remains unaware of the identity of corporations throwing vast
amounts of money into elections, leaving businesses free to attack or back
candidates in their own self interest and yet remain free of negative publicity.

As an example of how the Citizens United  decision can affect an election, during the 2012 New Hampshire gubernatorial contest, outside groups spent $19 million, almost five times as much money as did the candidates themselves.

How do Americans feel about recent legislative attempts to overturn the Citizens United decision? A Hart Research Associates survey (12/2011 - 1/2012) asked the
following question, "Restoring Congressional authority to limit the amount
corporations can spend on elections might require a Constitutional amendment
because the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens' United case said
corporations have the same rights as individuals under the Constitution. Would
you support a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the Citizens United
decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as
people?"

The answer was overwhelming. Seventy-nine percent of all voters supported such an amendment and that included 87 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of
Independents, and 68 percent of Republicans.

A follow-up question asked, "Do you think Congress should take action to limit the
amount corporations can spend on elections?" Again, support was lopsided with
82 percent in support and 18 percent in opposition.

A similar result was obtained when UNH asked New Hampshire residents if they favored this amendment. Sixty-nine percent supported such an amendment and 22 percent opposed it.

In line with these findings, a resolution (HCR 2) passed the New Hampshire State House (3/20/13) that stated, "I. That human beings, not corporations, are
endowed with Constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment; and II.
That money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and
spending is not equivalent to limited political speech . . ."

The amendment sought by HCR 2 would not only limit contributions from corporations, but also unions and wealthy individuals. It should be pointed out that a resolution is simply a statement of opinion. In effect, the House was informing Congress that a substantial majority of New Hampshire citizens favor an amendment overturning the Citizens United decision. However, before that could occur, HCR 2 also had to pass the State Senate. And it was here that HCR 2 ran into a roadblock.

The State Senate has passed a rule that no resolution can come before it for a vote unless such a move enjoys the support of at least two-thirds of its 24 members. Those of you facile with math have already concluded that 16 members must be in support. Now, that's definitely a problem. Thirteen state senators are
Republicans and 11 are Democrats.

All 11 Democrats are on board with HCR 2. Republicans holding office? Not so much. Most of that unlimited money coming from corporations goes to Republicans, so they aren't about to turn off that Golden Spigot of Cash. I might point out that this display of unbridled self interest is not shared, as a poll previously-cited poll in this column indicates, by rank and file Republicans who realize in the long run what damage can be done to democracy and the voice of the average voter by unleashing vast sums of money from special interests.

However, the magic number of 16 necessary for consideration of HCR 2 isn't likely to be reached in the State Senate. A dead end? Not quite.

State senators can also sign a letter in support of HCR 2. As you might expect, all 11 Democratic state senators have signed that letter. If only two of the
Republicans join them, the letter will be able to claim that a majority (13) of
the members of the State Senate support HCR 2.

That's where Republican state senator Nancy Stiles comes into play. She can be one of those two votes necessary to produce a majority in support of HCR 2. Stiles enjoys a largely undeserved reputation as a moderate. For example, she has recently voted with supposedly far more conservative colleagues (1) to pay for private school vouchers with public tax money, (2) to retain the Stand Your
Ground gun law, and (3) not to accept $2.5 billion in federal funds to provide
Medicaid services to 58,000 needy Granite Staters.

Once again, State Sen. Stiles will be put to the test. Will she or won't she sign a
letter in support of overturning the Citizens United decision, a sentiment
favored by a substantial majority of New Hampshire residents. Stay tuned here for the answer to that question.