Coakley declines to certify anti-Citizens United plan
Attorney General Martha Coakley's office on Tuesday ruled ineligible a proposed constitutional amendment being pushed by a citizens group opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United campaign finance ruling, which allows super-PACs to accept unlimited donations in support of political candidates.
"This is a matter that the Legislature can address, but the Massachusetts Constitution does not allow through the petition process," First Assistant Attorney General Chris Barry-Smith wrote in a letter obtained by the News Service from the proposal's sponsors, who hope to reverse Coakley’s decision.
Among other things, the amendment states that "corporations are not people and may be regulated" and "money is not free speech and may be regulated." Democratic Party delegates meeting in Worcester in June endorsed a resolution reflecting the sentiment of the proposed amendment.
While supporters hailed the court's ruling as a pivotal decision in favor of free speech, opponents of the Citizens United decision assert that the gush of unlimited election spending it authorized is bad public policy and leads to voters receiving a more unbalanced and distorted view of candidates and issues.
Barry-Smith said Coakley, Democratic candidate for governor, believes Citizens United should be overturned, but a review concluded the proposal doesn't meet state legal standards for a ballot petition. Coakley's office ruled a similar petition ineligible for the ballot on Sept. 4, 2013 on similar grounds.
The state constitution excludes from the initiative petition process any proposed constitutional amendment that is "inconsistent" with rights of individuals, such as freedom of speech and assembly.
"The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has long held the use of money to be part of an individual's rights to free speech and peaceable assembly," Barry-Smith wrote. "A proposed amendment that declares 'money shall not be considered free speech' is therefore inconsistent with the free speech and free association ('peaceable assembly') rights of individuals, as set forth in articles 16 and 19 of the Declaration of Rights and interpreted by the SJC."
Amendment supporters still hope to collect certified voter signatures and potentially bring the issue to the ballot in 2018. Constitutional amendments require passage by two consecutive state Legislatures in order to appear on the statewide ballot for potential voter approval.
Barry-Smith said the letter represented an "abbreviated decision" and was issued "to facilitate your ability to obtain prompt judicial review and to gather signatures while any such appeal is pending."
Barry-Smith said the decision "does not reflect any policy views the Office of the Attorney General may have on the merits of the proposed constitutional amendment."
Barry-Smith continued with a defense of Coakley, noting she urged the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a resolution to support the federal amendment, and also filed with other attorneys general an amicus brief in Citizens United, "asking the Supreme Court to uphold - not eviscerate - Congressional authority to restrict corporate political spending on federal elections."
According to an email provided by the petition's sponsors, the attorney general's office informed them of their decision not to certify the proposal just after 6 p.m. on Tuesday.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments