The first shot in a mini revolution was fired in Humboldt County, CA on June 6. Primary day here in California, it was also the day that Measure T, a people-powered initiative designed to "protect local control" and curb the influence of outside corporate interests on local matters, passed 55%-45%.
Read more about it over the flip.
cross-posted at The Courage Campaign
Measure T would bar donations to local candidates or initiatives by any out-of-town corporation, defined as having "even a single employee, director or shareholder outside the county." But supporters don't see Measure T as anti-corporate per se. In keeping with its "protect local control" slogan, local corporations would still be allowed to contribute to elections, and newspapers, corporate controlled or otherwise, would not be restricted from endorsing or opposing candidates or ballot measures.
The issue of local control is a personal one to this small, laid back and quite progressive Northern California county. Outside corporations have had a distinguished history of trying to impact Humboldt County business.
Wal-Mart spent $250,000 on a 1999 attempt to change the city of Eureka's zoning laws in order to clear the way for one of the retail giant's big-box stores. Five years later, MAXXAM Inc., a forest products company, got upset with the efforts of local District Attorney Paul Gallegos to enforce regulations on its operations in the county and spent $300,000 on a faked-up campaign to recall him from office. The same year saw outside corporations that were interested in exploiting the county's abundant natural resources meddling in its local election campaigns.
The reason corporations are allowed to assert influence in this way is "the long-established doctrine that corporations have the same constitutional rights as humans."
From Yes On Measure T:
Any corporation rich enough to sue can claim that laws protecting workers, the environment, communities, or small businesses violate their "rights."
Large corporations have used their "personhood" status to gain access to the ballot box and spend obscene amounts of money on push polling, paid petitioners and high-priced consultants.
They can also claim that a ban on contributions infringes on their freedom of speech. And they will. Opponents promise a fight in the courts and they just may win.
Bob Stern, president of the Center For Government Studies in Los Angeles, says the new law is "probably unconstitutional." He bases that on a 1978 ruling that overturned a Massachusetts law banning corporate donations in support of initiatives (bans on corporate giving to candidates have been upheld) in addition to the pro-business bent of the current court. But other experts feel the new law could prevail in the Supreme Court if proponents can demonstrate that corporate dollars have "undermined the integrity of the political process."
While we won't know the fate of Measure T for a while, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap of Yes On Measure T suggests that, considering the amount of national interest this measure has garnered, similar initiatives may pop up around the country. It's no wonder this idea of "local control" resonates. As we've seen our federal government undermine environmental standards, withhold funding for scientific advancements such as stem cell research and seek to overturn voter-approved initiatives such as Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, "protect local control" has become a veritable rallying cry for progressives everywhere. It's become a way to maintain progressive policies in blue states even as they're undermined at the federal level.
In addition, Measure T would seem to be at the heart of Markos's Libertarian Dem paradigm.
The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty -- the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.
And who knows, perhaps Measure T will ultimately prove to be the right law at the right time as public funding of elections gains momentum. A new Public Campaign Action Fund poll indicates that
Seventy-four percent of voters support a proposal for voluntary public funding of federal elections (57% strongly) with only 16% opposed.
This is music to our ears here in California where we will be celebrating Clean Money Day on Tuesday on the road to passing The California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006 in November.
"Money in elections is like rain on the roof," Sopoci-Belknap said. "It might get in somehow, but it's better to have a roof."