Politics & Government

Council Debates Its Response to Election Expenditures Case

At its July 11 meeting, Council could not reach agreement on group support for a constitutional amendment to reverse a Supreme Court decision about independent corporate expenditures during elections.

Constitutional Amendment on Corporate Spending During Elections

Greenbelt City Council debated a request from Maryland United for Peace and Justice to support a constitutional amendment to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

At Council's July 11 regular meeting, Mayor Judith “J” Davis said she didn’t think anybody [in Council] was in favor of corporations taking over the government and taking over elections. Still, she said she felt a Supreme Court amendment would be futile because it would take too long.

Find out what's happening in Greenbeltwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“We’ve got our own city business that we’ve got to take care of,” Davis added.

Greenbelt citizen, Doug Love, seemed to think it was city business and referenced the amount of money poured into a local candidate during a past election, but did not elaborate on the details.  “I think we do have a stake in this locally,” he said.

Find out what's happening in Greenbeltwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

He also said a constitutional amendment might not be the way to go, but that he thought it was a way to bring the issue up, adding it was a way for the public to say — if their legislators wouldn’t do something, they would have to get it started.

Councilmember Leta Mach also felt the Supreme Court’s decision could have a potential impact on Greenbelt. “You could see outrageous amounts of money being spent on city elections,” she said.

Still Mach expressed hesitation to push a constitutional amendment. She recommended that council draft a letter saying it was in favor of legislation or a constitutional amendment, whichever could be done quicker.

Feeling the issue was a federal matter, Councilmember Ed Putens voiced his opinion that the Supreme Court's decision was something that he and others could protest as individuals.

“I’m going to vote no regardless,” Davis said. She asked if Council members could do this on their own through their lobbying and also made reference to the vagueness of the request.

Roberts spoke out in support of the Maryland United for Peace and Justice request. He said, right now, they had a group of people that were trying to do something, and he thought that Council should support them in any way possible.

After listening to the debate Mayor Pro Tem Emmett Jordan suggested Council table the request and look into drafting something. He thought they all supported it, but it was just a matter of how to word it.

With Roberts as the lone dissenter, Council voted 6-1 to table the request and discussed bringing it back up at another time.

Citizens United Background

On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations could spend money on independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for election.

The case arose after a corporation, Citizens United, produced a documentary that was critical of Hillary Clinton and released “Hillary: The Movie,” during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008.

In The Huffington Post, Univesity of Chicago distinguished professor, Geoffrey R. Stone, elaborated on the reasoning behind both sides of Citizens United:

  • Addressing the opponents reasoning, he stated, “the dissenters in Citizens United see the problem this way: (1) Think of a town hall meeting or a presidential debate in which the moderator proposed to sell debate time to the highest bidder."
  • Discussing the proponents reasoning, he wrote, “Moreover, corporations and unions are just associations of individuals, and there is no good reason why associations of individuals shouldn't have the same First Amendment rights as the individuals themselves. Indeed, the NAACP and the New York Times have First Amendment rights, so why not General Motors and Bank of America?”


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

More from Greenbelt