Tag: activism

Citizens United Essay: Stenographers Ought to Shine A Light…

May it please the audience, I am providing a PDF download of an essay commissioned by me for publishing.

I will provide the plain text below that for search engine and ease-of-access purposes.

The-Citizens-United-Case-A-Catalyst-for-Corporate-Influence-in-Federal-PoliticsDownload

PLAIN TEXT:

The Citizens United Case – A Catalyst for Corporate Influence in Federal Politics

By Anonymous Commissioned & Published by Stenonymous.com

Introduction

            In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 ruling held that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money to finance elections.[1] The case was anchored on the backdrop of a documentary released by Citizens United advocating for Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy in the 2008 elections. The FEC deemed the film to be electioneering communication that was subject to the regulations imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, which effectively prohibited “any funds for soft money accounts from being solicited, received, directed, transferred, or spent in the name of the national political parties, Federal candidates, or officials…”[2] In this regard, Citizens United ought to have disclosed its funding sources to distribute the film, as per the provisions of the Act. In an attempt to protect free speech as enshrined in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.[3] In the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court argued that the restrictions imposed within the BCRA are unconstitutional, asserting that political spending is a form of expression that cannot be curtailed by government.[4] Regrettably, this decision had unintended consequences. It altered the relationship between money and politics, paving the way for increased corporate influence in federal elections and policy making. Today, big money lobbyists can wield substantial power to influence and shape legislative agendas within congress and even sway political outcomes.

The Rise of Corporate Influence

            Since the ruling, federal politics has been exposed to corporate influence and big money lobbyists. Companies and special interest groups have capitalized on the new-found freedom to pour huge amounts of money into the country’s political scene with vested interests. Enabled by the Supreme Court ruling, Political Action Committees (PACs) have now become vehicles for unlimited and unchecked political spending, which allows wealthy donors and companies to sway elections and shape the legislative agenda.[5] In the United States, there is no doubt that the top spending candidates win in elections.[6] The 2020 elections was the most expensive one in history with a record-breaking spending of $14.4 billion shillings, double of what was used in 2016 election cycle.[7] To this effect, there is no doubt that there has been a proliferation of undisclosed funds, which is funneled through non-profit organizations under the guise of donations, to undermine transparency and accountability in the political process. Today, tech giants such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon contribute significant sums to political candidates that would advocate for policies favorable to their industry. For example, Amazon.com contributed $1,307,500 to federal candidates in the previous election cycle to finance campaigns for different Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.[8] Such contributions are often given so that the candidates, once in office, can pass relaxed regulations on data privacy or intellectual property rights to favor the operations of their businesses. Likewise, big pharma companies such as Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson are also major players in campaign financing.[9] They primarily back candidates who oppose drug price regulations and support patent protections, particularly the conservative Republicans.[10] Furthermore, Wall Street players such as major investment banks like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, are significant contributors to political campaigns.[11] They often tend to support candidates who advocate for deregulation of the financial industry and lower corporate taxes, and a good example is Mitt Romney in the 2012 election cycle. Players in the financial sector raised $37.1 million to back Romney’s presidential bid, unlike Obama, who only managed to raise $4.8 million from the sector due to his unfavorable financial policies.[12] Oil, gas, and coal companies are also known for their involvement in campaign financing, particularly in supporting candidates who oppose environmental regulations and promote fossil fuel development.[13] Companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron have previously funded Republican candidates such as President Trump who advocated for energy independence through fossil fuel development, collectively raising up to $107 million for his presidential bid.[14] Therefore, there is no doubt that the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) opened a door for corporates to influence the country’s political landscape through unchecked and undisclosed financing, compromising the country’s democracy.

The Capture of Legislative Agenda

            As a result of corporate influence in federal politics, legislative capture and model legislation has proliferated. Essentially, companies, industry groups, and think tanks often draft bills that are then replicated in state capitols across the country, giving rise to ‘copycat bills.’[15] These bills are often disguised as the work of the lawmakers in the interests of the public, while in real sense, the drafts seek to advance the legislative and policy agenda of the corporate sponsors. In other words, State Legislatures as well as Congress pass what the large companies want, regardless of public interest.[16] A 2019 investigation done by USA Today and The Arizona Republic revealed that more than 10,000 copycat bills were introduced in state legislatures in just eight years.[17] These bills, often disguised with unique and deceptive titles, touched on profound issues of public interests such as consumer rights to environmental regulations.[18] A good example is when the State of Texas passed the Heartbeat Act of 2021. Texas’ largest anti-abortion group, Right to Life, spent $8 million on legislative lobbying efforts for anti-abortion laws in Texas and helped fund state senators win their elections to the tune of $4.3 million.[19] This lobbyist group helped draft the Heartbeat Act and pushed for its passing, which eventually happened in 2021.[20] This scenario vindicates the deceptive tactics used by special interest groups highlighted in the investigation. For example, the Heartbeat Act does not sound like an anti-abortion law. In fact, it makes it difficult for Texas citizens to access critical abortion services especially during emergencies, compelling them to travel to states that permit the procedure. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the public to understand the true impact of these bills and raise an alarm. Moreover, because legislatures are in office courtesy of the funding provided by these special interest groups and corporate sponsors, they cannot vote against such as punitive legislations owing to the fear of losing campaign financing.[21] The ease with which the capture of legislative agendas through model/copy-cat bills is an indication that corporates, lobbyists, and special interest groups exert undue influence on politicians. This perhaps explains why gun control laws keep on failing despite numerous cases of mass shootings and disproportionate gun violence across the country. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a very powerful lobby group that finances and compels politicians, especially Republicans, to vote against any restrictive gun safety and control laws proposed by Democrats.[22] The investigation done by USA Today and The Arizona Republic reveals that industry-backed bills have outnumbered those that actually benefit the public.[23] As such, this imbalance undermines the democratic process, giving corporations and wealthy donors an outsized voice in shaping policy. To this effect also, legislators, both at the federal and state levels, have become pawns controlled by corporate sponsors and lobby groups.[24] In what can be viewed as a legislative capture, elected legislators do not independently represent the wishes of the electorate. Instead, they readily advocate for the selfish business interests of lobbyists and corporates who present them with pre-written bills along with talking points, turning them into pawns who relinquish their constitutional mandate.

Need for Reforms and The Role of Stenographers

            Stenographers are well-poised to play a crucial role in promoting reforms by ensuring the accuracy of legislative records. Ideally, lawmakers who rely on pre-written bills may not fully understand the content and implications for the public. As such, stenographers ought to take the initiative, read in between the lines of such bills, and participate actively in the legislative process by raising awareness. In so doing, they can help promote transparency and accountability in the law-making process. They can serve as the people who hold elected officials accountable, reminding them of their mandate to represent the wishes of the public and not the special interest groups who finance their campaigns. Stenographers ought to shine a light and raise awareness on punitive bills being advocated for by lobbyists and corporates and call for public participation in the legislative process to ensure accountability and transparency in fidelity with the constitution and democratic values of the nation. This way, the average citizen will have a meaningful role in shaping the laws that govern them, not the big corporates and special interests groups.

Bibliography

Case Law

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 US 310 (United States Supreme Court)

Legislation

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) 2002

Scholarly Journal Articles

Goel P and others, ‘Donor Activity Is Associated with US Legislators’ Attention to Political Issues’ (2023) 18 PLOS ONE

Huwyler O, Turner-Zwinkels T and Bailer S, ‘No Representation without Compensation: The Effect of Interest Groups on Legislators’ Policy Area Focus’ (2022) 76 Political Research Quarterly

Schuster SS, ‘Does Campaign Spending Affect Election Outcomes? New Evidence from Transaction-Level Disbursement Data’ (2020) 82 The Journal of Politics

Wouters OJ, ‘Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Contributions by the Pharmaceutical and Health Product Industry in the United States, 1999-2018’ (2020) 180 JAMA Internal Medicine

Websites

‘Amazon.com PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates’ (OpenSecrets) https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/amazon-com/C00360354/candidate-recipients/2020

Evers-Hillstrom K, ‘Most Expensive Ever: 2020 Election Cost $14.4 Billion’ (OpenSecrets11 February 2021) https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/

Martinez C, ‘These Fossil Fuel Industry Tactics Are Fueling Democratic Backsliding’ (Center for American Progress5 December 2023) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/these-fossil-fuel-industry-tactics-are-fueling-democratic-backsliding/

O’Dell R and Penzenstadler N, ‘You Elected Them to Write New Laws. They are Letting Corporations Do It Instead.’ (Center for Public Integrity4 April 2019) https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/

Phillip A and Vogel K, ‘Wall St. Vote: Romney by Landslide’ (Politico2012) https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/wall-streets-vote-mitt-by-a-landslide-077368

Phillips M, ‘The Second Worst Trade of 2012: Wall Street’s Terrible Election Bet’ (The Atlantic7 November 2012) https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-second-worst-trade-of-2012-wall-streets-terrible-election-bet/264919/

Poritz I, ‘Texas’ Largest Anti-Abortion Group Spent Millions on Public Information Campaign, Lobbying in the Past Decade’ (OpenSecrets News9 September 2021) https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/09/texas-largest-anti-abortion-group-spent-millions-on-public-campaign-lobbying-in-past-decade/

Rachel Wilson, ‘Oil, Gas and Coal Interests Filling Donald Trump’s “Swamp” with Cash’ (Center for Public Integrity2 May 2017) https://publicintegrity.org/politics/oil-gas-and-coal-interests-filling-donald-trumps-swamp-with-cash/

‘Which Senators Have Taken the Most NRA Money?’ (Brady2020) https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators

[1] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 US 310 (United States Supreme Court).

[2] Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) 2002.

[3] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 US 310 (United States Supreme Court).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Pranav Goel and others, ‘Donor Activity Is Associated with US Legislators’ Attention to Political Issues’ (2023) 18 PLOS ONE.

[6] Steven Sprick Schuster, ‘Does Campaign Spending Affect Election Outcomes? New Evidence from Transaction-Level Disbursement Data’ (2020) 82 The Journal of Politics.

[7] Karl Evers-Hillstrom, ‘Most Expensive Ever: 2020 Election Cost $14.4 Billion’ (OpenSecrets11 February 2021) https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/

[8] ‘Amazon.com PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates’ (OpenSecrets) https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/amazon-com/C00360354/candidate-recipients/2020

[9] Olivier J Wouters, ‘Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Contributions by the Pharmaceutical and Health Product Industry in the United States, 1999-2018’ (2020) 180 JAMA Internal Medicine.

[10] Olivier J Wouters, ‘Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Contributions by the Pharmaceutical and Health Product Industry in the United States, 1999-2018’ (2020) 180 JAMA Internal Medicine.

[11] Matt Phillips, ‘The Second Worst Trade of 2012: Wall Street’s Terrible Election Bet’ (The Atlantic7 November 2012) https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-second-worst-trade-of-2012-wall-streets-terrible-election-bet/264919/

[12] Abby Phillip and Kenneth Vogel, ‘Wall St. Vote: Romney by Landslide’ (Politico2012) https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/wall-streets-vote-mitt-by-a-landslide-077368

[13] Chris Martinez, ‘These Fossil Fuel Industry Tactics Are Fueling Democratic Backsliding’ (Center for American Progress5 December 2023) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/these-fossil-fuel-industry-tactics-are-fueling-democratic-backsliding/

[14] Rachel Wilson, ‘Oil, Gas and Coal Interests Filling Donald Trump’s “Swamp” with Cash’ (Center for Public Integrity2 May 2017) https://publicintegrity.org/politics/oil-gas-and-coal-interests-filling-donald-trumps-swamp-with-cash/

[15] Rob O’Dell and Nick Penzenstadler, ‘You Elected Them to Write New Laws. They are Letting Corporations Do It Instead.’ (Center for Public Integrity4 April 2019) https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Isaiah Poritz, ‘Texas’ Largest Anti-Abortion Group Spent Millions on Public Information Campaign, Lobbying in the Past Decade’ (OpenSecrets News9 September 2021) https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/09/texas-largest-anti-abortion-group-spent-millions-on-public-campaign-lobbying-in-past-decade/

[20] Ibid.

[21] Oliver Huwyler, Tomas Turner-Zwinkels and Stefanie Bailer, ‘No Representation without Compensation: The Effect of Interest Groups on Legislators’ Policy Area Focus’ (2022) 76 Political Research Quarterly.

[22] ‘Which Senators Have Taken the Most NRA Money?’ (Brady2020) https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators

[23] Rob O’Dell and Nick Penzenstadler, ‘You Elected Them to Write New Laws. They are Letting Corporations Do It Instead.’ (Center for Public Integrity4 April 2019) https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/

[24] Ibid.

P.S.

A bit of musing. If I have it as good as I have it, and I still struggle sometimes. I know many of you make 3x what I do and still struggle in ways I’ll never know. How must others struggle with less? And some with a smile on their face.

I too smile sometimes. But if I don’t look at the bad in the world, how do I muster the courage to change it?

Or the courage to be mocked for believing we can?

First Draft: Stenonymous’s Proposal for Addressing the New York State Mental Health Crisis – March 2024

The mental health crisis in New York is a big topic of discussion online and off. I had an online interaction recently that sparked that more activist side of myself. So many of us are busy working people with not much time to protest or make our voices heard. Consequently, so many voices go unheard, and problems we experience go unsolved.

The core of my idea is creating a lawful process by which police are not just allowed, but required, to investigate problem incidents and people. As I’ve admitted in the past, I’ve seen the NYPD not show up when people call for help. I’ve read articles about how the NYPD ignores things it considers beneath it. A lot of cops, I’ve admitted in the past, I feel are heroes. But I’ll throw a bone to the ACAB crowd. Consequences are a universal human language. If there are no consequences, people will often opt to do the easiest thing. The easiest thing, by far, is to denigrate low-level complaints as “not worth the time,” or “a civil matter,” or whatever, and swear up and down that there are more important crimes to investigate, and then do nothing. Just how it is. I get it. This is a really nuanced issue, thinking of cops’ attitudes towards district attorneys declining to prosecute, and if I go into it any more this is going to be 9 years long. Let’s continue.

After you create a process by which the police MUST act on community complaints and create a process by which the police may detain or arrest for the purpose of assessment, amend the law to create consequences for people who stop treatment after having been assessed as requiring. Basically, if you don’t handle your problems, the consequences compound. And I don’t want to compound anyone’s problems, but this is just how it works. If you’re showing the system that you want to be a nuisance as opposed to just being someone in need of services or help, it ramps up consequences on you until you comply. Or you never comply, and eventually, bad things happen to you.

Now, there are definitely flaws in my idea. There may be case law that makes this difficult or requires this to be tweaked. On some level it might be redundant. We have initiatives for mental health. We’ve had initiatives like this challenged recently, though I don’t know the outcome as of writing. There are valid concerns about weaponizing mental health laws to allow police abuse versus “just” funding healthcare. But as I see it, this is silly binary thinking. We are human. We are imperfect. Our law is imperfect. You do the best you can to ascertain the impact of a law. If it seems good, you pass it. As the results come out, you tweak it to better suit the needs of the population.

Sometimes leadership is about making the best of a sea of bad decisions. Our leaders can’t say that because they like to be elected and the media likes to make them look ridiculous. The media’s terrified of me because I do not give a fuck if I look ridiculous. The more followers I get, the more I get to play leftist Elon Musk and use America’s obsession with the rich and powerful to fuck with the rich and powerful (in my case, the lawbreakers.) Today, I don’t have a lot of money. But I bet you there are millions of people who would throw down one or two bucks for the chance at creating a media personality that would make anti-retirement talking heads like Ben Shapiro beg for universal healthcare. Go ahead. Publish about me. Grow my follower count.

Maybe if we’re so concerned about the NYPD harassing people with mental health issues we should create a process by which those who feel they are experiencing harassment can bring it to the attention of a court, whether it’s an Article 78 proceeding or some other similar petition, and then maybe even get a court-issued order for the institutional harassment to stop, with penalties charged that go right to the aggrieved if they don’t stop. I’ll say in the NYPD’s defense that when I spoke to a sergeant recently about my 61 Broadway claims, he was professional, nice even, and as of yet, nobody’s harassed me. Again, nuanced, I have some benefits thanks to systemic issues in our society. There are arguments to be had a court process wouldn’t be accessible to the poor. I can go on for 9 years. I won’t.

Anyway, so what I’ll do now is share what I’m writing the public officials. Then I’ll put a download to the docx. If anyone wants to join me in trying to attract some attention, please do. I’ll be mailing these next week.

A download of what I’m sending the public offices is below.

New-York-State-Mental-Health-Crisis-ProposalDownload

Addendum:

Just a note, I am reminded of something horrifying I saw today, which I believe is an old video out of New Mexico of a cop basically being butchered. It’s something I would think cop haters should see. Criticisms of police are valid enough, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that these people are not putting their lives on the line for us.

EXTREMELY GRAPHIC, DO NOT WATCH if you cannot handle extremely graphic violence, including blood. Video.

If you would like a non-graphic video, check out these simulated shooter drills where they had a police critic try to determine when to shoot and when not to shoot. It really helped balance my perspective when a lot of the cop brutality stuff was coming out years ago.

…nine years of nuance.

3/19 update:

Christopher Day laments the state of law enforcement in the United States, where it is effectively legal for the nation of laws to harass working people with tolls, taxes, and everything else, while the degradation of our quality of life goes unabated and out in the open thanks to politicians afraid to admit difficult truths. Christopher Day has no opinion on any individual case because his duties demand he remain impartial, but feels this is a great example of the things New Yorkers are reading, discussing, and sharing. Just wait until you find out why this is in the third person.

The Savior Chimera

Some will have seen the recent article in Legal Tech News where Max Curry, NCRA’s president, told the press straight up that electronic recording by itself is too risky compared to steno in taking the spoken word. Reading the article got me pretty concerned. I felt, as a member, that NCRA’s views weren’t represented well. I didn’t know if that was because of a lack of articulation or because the cards were stacked against Max. I didn’t know if the full breadth of what he was explaining was captured accurately. The words printed just don’t come off as pro-steno as his September 2019 Virtual Town Hall. So I did what anybody familiar with the issues at hand would do, and I wrote the author something super polite. I didn’t get a response, and something tells me I’m not getting a response. Something tells me the cards were stacked against our NCRA when that interview was taken. Hopefully, time proves me wrong, or journalists do a little more digging into this important issue. Just in case they don’t, here we go.

I’ve already gone on at length why I think stenography is the only solution to the court reporter shortage. Let me double down on this because I have the benefit of being self-published. Stenography’s the only solution. There are more stenographic schools than transcriber schools. We are two to four times more efficient than the record-and-transcribe method. AI is going to burn through investors’ money like the Joker in The Dark Knight (2008). When you get down to it, you are dealing with two very different organizations. I have been through several years of tax returns of both NCRA and AAERT. You know what jumps out at me? In NCRA’s weakest year that I reviewed, 2016, AAERT made about 13% of NCRA’s revenue. Let me say that another way. We stenographers fund an organization easily ten times more than the recording-is-the-future crowd funds “the future.” Even with a membership that is about one third the cost, it appears from my review of these returns that AAERT cannot attract even a third of our membership. Be proud that your money is going to funding conventions, a professional journal, and a dedicated staff who are all about what we do and a thousand percent in support of all grassroots stenography efforts.

There’s got to be alarm bells going off in people’s minds. In one corner, we have stenography, NCRA, an education culture of over 10,000 members, with strong support for anyone that wants to promote the profession or recruit. In the other corner, we have a Best Practices Guide that maybe a couple thousand people have read and maybe four schools.  If you’re someone who doesn’t know jack about court reporting in America, and you read this, which would you entrust the future to? Which corner would you be in if your goal was to solve the court reporter shortage of America? Stanley Sakai said it way better than I did, but there’s a reason that so many courts, attorneys, and classrooms pick steno over digital recording every day. There’s a reason that the “court reporting” companies didn’t just swap over to the technology that has been available since 1995. There’s a reason AAERT is not our shortage savior today.

Does all this mean we cannot do better? Does this mean shut up and have no opinion about this organization? Does this mean never dissent? No. The Journal of Court Reporting says in its mission statement that they are seeking out diverse views. Max Curry said himself in the town hall that if you are a member who has ideas, he wants you to bring forward those proposals. This is the time for people to step up and make submissions. This is a time of activism, research, and effort in the field. It’s time for people to submit all of the hard work they are doing and share it with your fellow colleagues so that they are inspired to go out and build on that work. I have one caution. Don’t get suckered into being divided and conquered. That’s frankly the only way for us to lose, and our dear friends in the recording businesses of “the future” are counting on it.

In several places on this site, I made a joke. I called us the Unremarkable But Reliable Stenographic Legion. Joke’s on me, because in the last three years you have all proven me very wrong. Whether you’re Open Steno, Protect Your Record, helping our heroes in their time of need, a superhero at the ACRA conference, or someone I haven’t even gotten to discuss on this blog yet, you are remarkable. We are out there every day proving that the human element means something. There is no existential crisis. It’s settled that we are the best method to capturing the spoken word. We need only continue doing what we do every day, promoting ourselves, promoting each other, improving, and providing excellent service.

Addendum. Special thanks to a reader who corrected my usage of “went” to “gone.”