Keyan Bliss, press@movetoamend.org, (707) 269-0984
Washington Ballot Measure Approved for 2016 Elections
Washington State Coalition and National Coalition to Amend Constitution Praises Volunteer Efforts on Statewide Initiative
The Secretary of State's Office for Washington State Elections certified Initiative 735 for the ballot today. I-735 will ask Washington voters to decide this November whether to join sixteen other states in calling for their state legislature and Congress to propose an amendment that makes clear that constitutional rights belong to human beings only and that money is not protected speech, effectively overturning the controversial decision in the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"We are inspired by the tremendous efforts by our Washington volunteers in the WAmend Coalition and the people of Washington State who made this ballot measure a reality! This represents an overwhelming rejection of the Supreme Court's expansion of corporate power," said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, National Director of Move to Amend. "Voters in Washington have the opportunity to join a growing movement of people from all walks of life rejecting the overwhelming influence of big corporations in politics, and demanding a genuine democracy that is accountable to We the People, not wealthy interests."
Since the Court's 2010 decision to expand First Amendment rights for corporations and unions the amount of campaign spending in state and national elections has increased at an unprecedented rate. Over 1,200 volunteers and supporters of the WAmend Coalition worked over the past year collecting over 337,000 signatures supporting I-735, with over 112,000 signatures collected in December alone. Volunteers from Move to Amend, the national campaign that launched in the wake of Citizens United, played a large role in securing the initiative signatures.
"An overwhelming majority of Americans share the sentiment that corporations should not have the same rights as people, and big money in politics should be removed from the political process," continued Sopoci-Belknap. "It is time for Congress to pass the We the People Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and send it to the states for ratification. The leadership of both parties need to realize their constituents are demanding an end to money as speech and corporate personhood through a Constitutional amendment. We will only get louder the longer they delay."
Move to Amend is a rapidly growing national grassroots coalition of over 400,000 individuals and thousands of organizations working to pass a constitutional amendment to make clear that Constitutional rights belong to human beings and political spending is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Their "We The People Amendment" was introduced in the US House of Representatives on April 29, 2015 as House Joint Resolution 48 by Representative Richard Nolan (D-MN).
More information about the WAmend coalition can be found on their website at WAmend.org. The coalition is includes members of Move to Amend, Fix Democracy First, Public Citizen, Backbone Campaign, Move On, Money Out Voters In, and a number of other organizations.
MovetoAmend.org is a coalition supported by hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals dedicated to ending the illegitimate legal doctrines that prevent the American people from governing ourselves.
Supreme Court Refuses to Rescue Prison-Bound Steve Bannon
When he's done serving his four-month sentence for flouting congressional subpoenas, the former top Trump adviser faces a federal trial over the We Build the Wall scam.
Steve Bannon, a onetime senior adviser to former U.S. President Donald Trump who was convicted of defying congressional subpoenas related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, must report to prison Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his 11th-hour bid to avert his four-month sentence.
In a single-sentence order with no public dissents, the Supreme Court stated that Bannon's "application for release pending appeal presented to the chief justice and by him referred to the court is denied."
In July 2022, a federal jury found Bannon guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. That October, he was sentenced to four months in prison and fined $6,500. Bannon has remained free pending appeals and has benefited from a pause imposed by Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee.
David Schoen, an attorney for Bannon, toldThe Washington Post on Friday: "I fully believe the conviction will be reversed and it is a shame to see it mishandled like this. He never should be going to jail for even a day."
However, Bannon not only faces four months behind bars for flouting Congress, another federal trial awaits him over his alleged conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering in connection with the
We Build the Wall fundraising scam.
Giving Women 'Fewer Rights Than a Bag of Trash,' Iowa Supreme Court Upholds 6-Week Abortion Ban
"This ruling will deny critical and lifesaving care to pregnant people in the state. Make no mistake: This law will result in the death of Iowans," said one abortion fund in the state.
"We now live in a state where pregnant people have fewer rights than a bag of trash," said the Iowa Abortion Access Fund Friday after the state Supreme Court ruled that a six-week abortion ban passed in 2018 can go into effect.
IAAF was quoting Iowa Supreme Court Justice Thomas Waterman, who noted in June 2023, when the court upheld an injunction against the ban, that the state prohibits police officers from searching residents' trash cans without a warrant.
"It would be ironic and troubling for our court to become the first state Supreme Court in the nation to hold that trash set out in a garbage can for collection is entitled to more constitutional protection than a woman's interest in autonomy and dominion over her own body," said Waterman at the time.
Advocates said that was exactly the status of reproductive rights in the state following Friday's ruling, in which a lower court was ordered to end a temporary block on the six-week ban.
In the 4-3 decision, the court stated that there is no constitutional right to abortion care, with Justice Matthew McDermott writing in the majority opinion that the right to an abortion is "not rooted at all in our state's history and tradition."
With so-called exceptions for pregnancies that endanger the life of the patient but no clarifying guidance from state officials about how urgent a pregnant person's medical condition must be before a doctor can provide an abortion, IAAF warned that the law will prove deadly for Iowans.
"No one should doubt Republicans are coming after contraception, surrogacy, and fertility treatments next, even though the majority of Iowans want those decisions to be made by women with their families and physicians."
"This ruling will deny critical and lifesaving care to pregnant people in the state. Make no mistake: This law will result in the death of Iowans," said the group.
The other so-called "exceptions" to the six-week ban include pregnancies that result from rape, if the crime is reported to police or a health provider within 45 days; incest, if reported within 45 days, or fatal abnormalities that are "incompatible with life."
But despite those exceptions—which in many cases since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, have threatened the lives of pregnant people—the ACLU warned that the decision "will force some people to remain pregnant against their will and rob them of their right to make private medical decisions."
Chief Justice Susan Christensen wrote in a dissent that the law "strips Iowa women of their bodily autonomy," while Planned Parenthood North Central States called the ruling a "devastating blow."
"Today's dangerous and reprehensible ruling will impact Iowans for generations to come," said Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of the group.
The ruling comes a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that emergency department doctors in Idaho can temporarily resume abortion care for people with pregnancy complications, but did not say that medical providers across the country can legally do the same, regardless of whether their state has an abortion ban—in accordance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
Iowa state auditor Rob Sand said the state Republican Party will not stop at taking away people's right to obtain abortion care.
"The decision strips reproductive freedom away from Iowa women," said Sand. "No one should doubt Republicans are coming after contraception, surrogacy, and fertility treatments next, even though the majority of Iowans want those decisions to be made by women with their families and physicians."
Possible Lift for Trump as Supreme Court Sides With January 6 Insurrectionist
"This is important in its own right but also signals what's to come" in the former president's immunity case, said one analyst.
In a ruling that could have implications for charges brought against former U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Friday put new constraints on how obstruction charges could be brought against individuals who participated in the January 6 insurrection attempt in 2021.
The high court voted along nonideological lines, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining five conservatives in the majority opinion and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in a dissent.
According to the majority, former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer cannot be charged with obstruction of an official proceeding for joining a mob of Trump supporters who breached the U.S. Capitol to stop lawmakers were certifying the 2020 election.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that to prove January 6 defendants, including Fischer, obstructed an official proceeding, prosecutors must show they "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or... other things used in the proceeding."
The case hinged on a law enacted in 2002 after the Enron financial scandal, which the majority said was intended to apply to limited circumstances involving physical tampering.
Trump is among nearly 250 people whose January 6 cases could potentially be affected by the Fischer ruling, as they have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding.
There are 52 cases in which obstruction was the only felony conviction or charge, and The Washington Post reported that those are the "most likely defendants to be significantly affected by the decision."
Trump faces four charges in his election interference criminal case, including one count of obstructing an official proceeding and one count of conspiring to do so.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the election interference case, has said a dismissal of the obstruction charges against Fischer and other January 6 defendants would not impact Trump's case, but Trump's legal team "may use [the ruling] to try to whittle down" prosecutors' arguments against the former president, according to the Post.
On social media shortly after the ruling was handed down, Trump posted the message: "BIG WIN!"
The justices are set to rule soon in another case asking whether Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions he took while in office, like his spreading of the lie that he was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election and the actions he took to foment and support those who stormed the Capitol Building.
The ruling could negate questions about whether the 2002 law applies to Trump's conduct, suggested legal analyst Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
"This is important in its own right but also signals what's to come in [the] immunity case," said Eisen.
The court sent the Fischer case back to the lower courts to determine whether the U.S. Justice Department could still prosecute January 6 defendants under the more narrow interpretation of the law.
While Jackson sided with the conservative majority, she wrote in a separate opinion that Fischer and other defendants could still be charged with obstruction if it is found that they tampered with electoral vote certificates.
Barrett wrote in the minority opinion that the question of whether Fischer can be prosecuted for an obstruction charge "seems open and shut," since the goal of breaching the U.S. Capitol was to disrupt the joint session of Congress where lawmakers were certifying the election results.
"Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress's joint session on January 6th," Barrett wrote. "Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction."