Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, didn’t mince words Thursday when he expressed his dismay at the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning years of campaign finance law.
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)
“Talk about an activist Supreme Court — they decided an issue that wasn’t really even in front of them,” Harkin said during a conference call with reporters. “In fact, the case that was in front of them, they decided the other way, but they reached into this other area and brought it out and made a decision on something that wasn’t really in front of them. Now, what’s the definition of an activist Supreme Court?”
After initially hearing arguments on both sides of the issue March, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asked the litigants to re-argue the case with a broader focus. Instead of only arguing whether federal election laws should have applied in this particular case, Roberts asked the parties to argue whether the court should reverse rulings in two prior cases upholding the government’s ability to limit corporate and union election spending.
Harkin said after year’s of conservative outrage about “activist judges,” it was the conservative members of the Supreme Court that made this decision.
“What they basically did is overturn standing law — what has been standing law in this country since 1907,” he said. “A ban on corporate political spending.”
The court ignored “precedent here going back 100 years” in its decision, concluding that “money is equal to speech.”
“As recently as 1990, in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the court upheld a state law that banned corporations from making independent expenditures, using corporate fund,” Harkin said. “The court today just overturned the 1990 ruling. So, what has happened to precedent here? I think people ought to be very alarmed by this decision by this Supreme Court. What it means is that corporations now can just put whatever amount of money they want to into an election — specifically opposing or supporting a candidate. In the past at least they could only do issue ads, but now they can support or oppose a candidate openly, and right up until election day. No more bans on 90 day [before an election] and things like that. Someone described as us being back in the wild, wild west as far as campaigns go.”
The ultimate victor of this decision will be Republicans, Harkin said, because “all the things that Republicans are for, is what corporate America is for.”
“And I think you will see more money poured into these campaigns this year by corporate America than you have ever seen in your lifetime, and it will be poured in on behalf of Republicans,” he said. “Mark my word.”
Corporate America has enough strength and power on its own without the help of the Supreme Court, he said.
Harkin concluded that to overcome this decision Congress should amend the country’s constitution, although he admitted it will be easier said than done.
“So, hang onto your hat, it’s going to be wild ride this year.”
Follow Lynda Waddington on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter