This just in from Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights:
SAN FRANCISCO – Federal Court judge Susan Illston ruled against the people of Humboldt County in yesterday’s hearing on Measure T, the local law passed in 2006 by citizen’s initiative. Measure T bans non-local corporate contributions in local elections.
The Pacific Legal Foundation sought a preliminary injunction against Measure T, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment rights of corporations. The judge granted the injunction, allowing corporate money back into local elections.
The proponents of the Measure were disappointed by the ruling, but unfazed. “The court is wrong – and this isn’t the first time,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, spokesperson for the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights (HCCR). “Measure T follows in the footsteps of the suffragists, the abolitionists and Civil Rights activists who fought against Supreme Court decisions that upheld unjust laws. The majority of Humboldt citizens believe corporations have too much power in our society, especially in elections. Our democracy is deteriorating. We have an obligation to stand up for what’s right, even if the courts are not currently with us.”
“This ruling proves how undemocratic it is to allow a corporation to claim to be a person with constitutional rights,” said Megan Wade Antieau of Democracy Unlimited, an organizer of the event. “Apparently the judge believes upholding corporate influence in elections is more important than the rights of the people of Humboldt County.”
“We don’t need to depend on the courts to tell us the difference between right and wrong. We have candidates running for office in November who should respect the will of the voters,” said Wade Antieau.
Democracy Unlimited, one of the member organizations of HCCR, is holding a community meeting this Wednesday (Sept. 24) to invite residents to get involved in defending Measure T.
The meeting will be at the Labor Temple in Eureka (840 E Street) from 6:30pm to 9:30pm. Light dinner will be served. Carpooling is available from Arcata. For more information contact Democracy Unlimited: 269-0984.
This article appears in Our Fire, Our Fight.
“We don’t need to depend on the courts to tell us the difference between right and wrong.” — Democracy Unlimited
What happened to the rule of law?
Those damn courts, if they’d only listen to the activists who know so much better. BTW, isn’t that what the right wingers say too?
“This ruling proves how undemocratic it is to allow a corporation to claim to be a person with constitutional rights,”
Please NCJ, get a follow up on this. I would really like to see her logic behind how the ruling proves anything but the courts opinion that this law is unconstitutional. Come on, It’ll be fun to listen to her emotional tripe.
My understanding is that an injunction is very difficult to get and this ruling is a good indicator that there is no salvaging Measure T.
I’m thinking “Democracy Unlimited” is actually a good name for Kaitlin’s group since she seems to believe in the tyranny of the majority as opposed to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The Constitution is an impediment to the “Democracy Unlimited” folks, which is one reason why her use of the Suffragette example is so offensive.
Three cheers for O&M and Mercer/Frasher for having the courage to stand up and lend their names to this challenge.
This is a significant ruling that shows how fundamentally defective Measure T is.
Rose, Kaitlin is not anything about majorities, “Democracy Unlimited” or no.
Yes, the just Constitution which once ruled a black person, was well, just 2/3rds a person. Too bad we’ve recanted on that though huh ?
That little tidbit doesn’t hold water, mresquan.
“The majority of Humboldt citizens believe corporations have too much power in our society, especially in elections. Our democracy is deteriorating. We have an obligation to stand up for what’s right, even if the courts are not currently with us.”
I can agree with this statement even though I voted against Measure T and would do so again. There are a lot of Strawmen about.
For those who are arguing that the ‘will of the voters’ should trump the law and the Constitution – consider this: California Proposition 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. It was introduced as the Save Our State initiative. A number of organizations were involved in bringing it to the voters. It passed with 58.8% of the vote, …Its constitutionality was immediately challenged…it was overturned by a federal court.
Just guessin’ – I’ll bet you approved of the court making the decision in that one.
Measure T was unconstitutional and therefore a loser from the outset. One suspects that those who hate “corporations” simply can’t stand the idea of anyone anywhere making money.
so who voted for it? not many here by the sounds of it.
What I would like to know is why the Journal slavishly prints the pro-Measure T agitprop from Kaitlin, while ignoring everything the PLF, Crawford, the ACLU and all its other opponents are saying. Is this reporting or mere propaganda?
It’s reassuring that Kaitlan knows so much more that the Federal Judge. And kait were is the next pancake breakfast>
Tom,
The simple answer is that I checked my e-mail Tuesday morning and found that press release in my mailbox. I posted it (without comment) because it was breaking news. Hank provided analysis in the paper the next day, perhaps you missed that. And you’ll notice that Chris Crawford commented on it above.
Here bob, PLF posted this the same day you posted the HCCR press release. So much for exploring all viewpoints and investigative journalism.
EUREKA, CA; September 23, 2008: Humboldt County may not enforce “Measure T,” its ordinance that bans local campaign donations by a broad category of businesses, a federal judge ruled last night. The ruling came on a request for a preliminary injunction filed by attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation, who have brought a constitutional lawsuit against Measure T. Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California held that the legal challenge has raised a credible claim that Measure T violates free speech and equal protection rights. Therefore, the judge ruled, it should not be enforced while the lawsuit goes forward.
“This ruling is a victory for fundamental constitutional rights,” said PLF Attorney Damien Schiff, who represents the Humboldt County employers who are challenging Measure T’s constitutionality. “Measure T is an attempt to muzzle businesses and employers and drive them out of the political arena. Nothing could be more alien to the Constitution’s protections for free speech and civic participation. Because of Judge Illston’s ruling, our clients, and all employers in Humboldt County, will be free to fully participate in debates surrounding the upcoming election. They can exercise the liberties that the Constitution guarantees for them – and for all of us.”
Measure T – the Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Our Rights to Fair Elections and Local Democracy – is an ordinance enacted by initiative in June, 2006. If a corporation has any employees or shareholders living outside of the county – even a single worker or stockholder over the county line – Measure T bans the business from donating to campaigns relating to local ballot measures or candidates for local office.
Measure T also violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection guarantees, according to the PLF lawsuit, because it does not impose the same campaign donation limits on unions.
A public interest legal organization headquartered in Sacramento, PLF is the nation’s legal leading watchdog for limited government, property rights, and constitutional freedoms. In the Measure T lawsuit, PLF attorneys represent Mercer, Fraser Co., a highway contractor and heavy construction business located in Eureka, and O & M Industries, a commercial and industrial contractor. O & M is located in Arcata.
The lawsuit complaint, along with the text of Measure T, may be found at PLF’s Web site.
when a self-labeled news publication automatically publishes viewpoints submitted to them without checking the other arguments, it is called bad journalism or if done purposely, propaganda. anybody agree?
Let me see if I got this straight: If I’d published the Pacific Legal Foundation press release, which represents your side of the issue, that would have been good journalism and not propaganda?
I’ll explain again since you seem to have missed it the first time. What I did was reprint something on this blog that showed up in my mailbox. Why? Becasue it contained breaking news. I did so for the sake of discussion and nothing more. If PLF had sent me a press release (they did not) I would have posted that. I knew Hank would be writing about it later that day, offering further analysis. In case you only read this blog, here’s the link.
What you see above is clearly identified as a press release. There was not really any “journalism” involved, just simple blogging. That said, I invite you to take a look at your daily paper and watch for stories with no byline – they’re pretty much all press releases.
1). Not my position its the press release from PLF. It good to have a clear understanding of both sides of an argument. I happen to agree with the judge.
2). I said that both releases should have been posted if you are really a news outfit that provides information and not propaganda.
3). While it appears to be affiliated with your “mothership” publication you seem to think of it as a separate entity for editorialism and posting of points of view of people of your mindset..
It is interesting to know that while your publication continually brags about winning prizes for great journalism, you really don’t hold yourself to any higher standards than those of the publications you mock and hold yourselves above….
sorry, just’s watching the watchers?
unanonymous says:
“uh this is a blog…”
Bob says, good point — try to keep that in mind — this is a blog, not a newspaper.
I will keep in mind that the NCJ is not a newspaper. Is entertainment weekly okay?
also, thanks for taking out of context.. What I would expect from a blogger.
We call the Journal an alt. weekly.
We call this the North Coast Journal Blogthing.
Uh, this is a blog, so sure, as bloggers, we’re happy to use any context we like.
still banned?
Banned? What are you talking about? Your critique is getting tiresome, but it’s hardly ban-worthy, not that we even do that sort of thing on this blog.
my bad, no http in pasting websites. me learn.
Winston Churchill said: “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body.”
re: your Churchill quote — Is it okay if I take a couple of aspirin now? (I’m out of Vicodin.)
we may have stumbled onto a new 215 script. Man I take a lot of criticism…