Winston-Salem City Council passes resolution against Citizens United

Councilman James Taylor greets resolution supporters.

Winston-Salem City Council voted 5-2 on Monday night to approve a resolution opposing the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

A compromise between Councilman James Taylor Jr., the resolution's sponsor, and Councilman Dan Besse, passed with little discussion following about three months of shuttling to and from committee and wrangling over language and intent. The changes were made to address reservations expressed by Besse and garner his vote for the majority.

"When you start to see federally, on the state level and even locally in other cities that money was being placed over the people, I think this resolution sent a clear signal to everyone in our city that we won't put money over people, that people matter," Taylor said.

In addition to Taylor and Besse, the resolution garnered support from council members Vivian Burke, Denise D. Adams and Derwin Montgomery. Robert Clark and Wanda Merschel voted against the measure. Councilwoman Molly Leight, who had earlier expressed support for the resolution, was absent from the meeting.

With approval of the resolution, Winston-Salem joins Greensboro, Durham, Raleigh, Asheville and Chapel Hill in opposing the controversial Supreme Court ruling, which allowed so-called "super PACs" to spend unlimited cash in media advertising buys to influence elections as long as the expenditures are not coordinated with any candidate. 

The Winston-Salem council's resolution expresses opposition to "the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission regarding constitutional rights for corporations."

The compromise resolution struck language calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United, calling instead "for the reversal" of the decision without naming any specific mechanism. But the title of the resolution still includes a reference to a Constitutional amendment.

To appease Besse the resolution also removed language stating, erroneously, that the Citizens United decision "declared corporations to be persons."

The final obtained by Besse removed the language articulating the stance that "only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment," and avers instead that "the rights of corporations and other artificial beings under the First Amendment may be restricted to a greater degree and in a different manner than those of natural persons."

Supporters celebrated approval of the resolution at Foothills Brewing after the council meeting. Kim Porter with Occupy Winston-Salem said the resolution would not have passed without help from several organizations, most notably Democracy North Carolina, whose personnel helped gather more than 1,300 signatures on a petition.

"James Taylor has worked very diligently with residents of the city and different groups involved in this process," Porter said. "Many people told us that a corporate town like Winston-Salem would never pass a resolution against Citizens United. I'm glad we proved them wrong." 

Citizens United resolution moves closer to vote by Winston-Salem council

Tony Ndege of Occupy Winston-Salem urges members of the general government committee to approve a resolution calling on Congress to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 

The Winston-Salem City Council will consider a resolution next Monday calling on Congress to amend the US Constitution to establish that "only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment" and that "money is not speech under the First Amendment and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech."


The resolution was approved by a 3-1 vote tonight by the general government committee following an amendment moved by Councilwoman Denise D. Adams to strike a reference to the US Supreme Court declaring "corporations to be persons" in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, based on an objection by Councilman Dan Besse that the statement was not factually accurate.

Councilman James Taylor Jr., who brought the original resolution to council at the urging of Occupy Winston-Salem, reluctantly agreed to the amendment. The amended resolution passed with support from Taylor, Adams and Councilwoman Molly Leight, while Besse voted against it. 

City Attorney Angela Carmon concurred with Besse's reading of the Citizens United decision.

"I don't believe the decision declared corporations to be persons," she said. "I believe it declared corporations to be entitled to the same First Amendment protections as natural persons."

After the meeting, Besse circulated an alternative resolution stating that the Supreme Court's rulings "that unlimited spending by non-candidates in efforts to influence the outcome of an election cannot be regulated" and that corporations cannot be regulated as a class distinct from natural persons should be overturned.

City Attorney Angela Carmon told council members that amendments from the floor at next Monday's meeting are permissible. But Montgomery warned that his colleagues should be cautious about entertaining amendments lest the consensus around the resolution unravel and the matter wind up getting sent back to committee. 

"I believe we should send a clear message to the federal judicial branch to let them know that elections should not and will not be bought in this country, in this state and even in this city," Taylor said. "There are hundreds upon hundreds of cities all across the country that stand with us. It isn't just me presenting this. I represent some people who are here today, who I believe are going to speak. This is a grassroots movement. It isn't just us. There are hundreds of cities across the country, and even cities in this state that have approved the resolution calling for an amendment to the Citizens United decision. Those major cities in North Carolina are Greensboro, Durham, Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Asheville and Greenville."

Kim Porter of Occupy Winston-Salem said about a thousand Winston-Salem residents have signed a petition supporting the resolution, including NC Sen. Earline Parmon, NC Rep. Ed Hanes Jr., Winston-Salem NAACP President Wayne Patterson and former Councilman Larry Little, and 300 other North Carolinians from outside of the city also signed on.  

"When you give money free speech, you give corporations a much larger megaphone than, say, I could," said Adam Price, a resolution supporter who said he is currently homeless. "I don't have as much money. What does my voice count in a democratic system where my voice should count if I don't have as much free speech as the next guy. If we turn money into a form of free speech, then we now have a higher system of the amount of free speech than each person will be able to attain in their lifetime. I'm not going to be a millionaire -- I'm not going to say that -- but I'm probably not going to be a millionaire. But if money is free speech, then that millionaire has a million more free speeches than I do. One man, one vote, and if you support that -- support that democratic view of one man, one vote, you'll push this. Let's do this. Let's take it from the ground up. City Hall to Supreme Court. Let's do it. Come on, guys."

Besse has long opposed the resolution, arguing to colleagues that it is not an appropriate area for city council to get involved and that denying corporations the rights of personhood could have the unintended consequence of preventing groups of people from coming together to advance their interests.

"I voted against the resolution because I don't like the way it handled the corporate personhood issue and because it fails to address some of the problems in the Citizens United decision," he said after the meeting. "I think that Move to Amend and other groups like them take the wrong tack on the Citizens United case. It addresses a related issue and fails to address the fundamental issues of the Citizens United decision. I expect to discuss the alternative resolution that I drafted for the city council on Monday evening and simply lay out the option. I think for those who want this it's best to tell them: 'If you want to see Citizens United overturned, this is a better call. I told my fellow council members we would bring it to a resolution next Monday night one way or another. Whether I'm on the winning side or not doesn't really matter to me."

Tony Ndege of Occupy Winston-Salem indicated that he was satisfied overall with the committee's handling of the resolution.


"I'm happy that this is moving along," he said. "I am very unhappy that the wording on 'corporate personhood' has been struck, but I'm happy that the language about moving to amend was left in. Whether or not they agree or disagree, the idea that the original intent of the First Amendment, with the Fourteenth Amendment and with the Bill of Rights were for natural persons -- that is the essential argument. And it also boils down to whether or not we choose to stand on the side of corporate power or on the side of people."

Winston-Salem council postpones vote on Citizens United resolution

Citizens seeking to curb corporate influence over electoral politics leave Winston-Salem council chambers on Tuesday.

The Winston-Salem City Council decided tonight to direct its general government committee to consider a resolution in support of overturning the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision, setting up a contest between clashing schools of thoughts on council – one holding that intervening in such a manner is an overreach of local government’s mandate and the other that corporate money poses a threat to representative democracy at all levels.

Members of Occupy Winston-Salem, who have led the effort to get the resolution passed, had hoped for a vote tonight, but one of the council members sympathetic to their cause was unable to get the item placed on the agenda.

Councilman James Taylor Jr., who represents the Southeast Ward, attempted to add the resolution to the agenda through a suspension of the rules. The legislative maneuver needs unanimous support, and Councilwoman Wanda Merschel, who represents the Northwest Ward, said she wanted more time to review the item before taking a vote. Supporters requested the resolution on Dec. 17 and members of Occupy Winston-Salem have been lobbying council on the matter since last summer.

Taylor said after the meeting that whether corporations are people or not is subject to debate, but the danger of vested corporate interests buying seats on city councils is real.

“Now these are people who may not care one way or another about the people, about the government; all they care about is the bottom line,” he said. “And I think anytime you run the risk of putting people there who only care about corporations’ bottom line you are tearing up the social fabric of what our forefathers and what our ancestors have built.”

The proposed resolution will be considered by the general government committee, which is chaired by Southwest Ward Councilman Dan Besse, on Feb. 12. Besse predicted from the dais that the committee will approve the resolution for consideration by the full council. East Ward Councilman Derwin Montgomery told supporters to expect full council to vote on the measure on Feb. 18.

Besse has stated that he opposes a resolution in opposition to Citizens United, but his is only one of four votes on the general government committee, along with Taylor, South Ward Councilwoman Molly Leight and North Ward Councilwoman Denise D. Adams.

“It will be my recommendation to the committee to send forward a resolution back to the council in whatever shape it’s in at the end of our meeting,” Besse said. “The committee may or may not approve that recommendation, but I suspect it may because my colleagues on the committee are those that say they favor the motion.”

Besse has previously that city councils should limit their actions to matters directly relevant to their mandated responsibilities of running city government.



James Taylor Jr.

“This particular resolution is germane to city business,” Taylor said. “There are at least 12 cities in North Carolina who also think it’s germane to city business and who also passed resolutions. The website that we invite our citizens to take a look at, it tells us that the city council is responsible for adopting and providing for all ordinances, rules and regulations as necessary for the general welfare of our city. Regulations are defined as principles that govern our behavior. I would argue that this type of behavior would be corporate behavior, and it deals with our ability to have fair elections and the general welfare of our city.”

Leight echoed Taylor’s sentiments and expressed public disagreement with Besse.

“Something that affects our voting process – yes, it’s a national issue, yes it’s a court issue, but it’s also a Winston-Salem issue,” she said, prompting applause from dozens of resolution supporters in the audience.

Montgomery, who does not serve on the general committee, also indicated he supports the resolution.

Among several concerns, Besse has argued that passing a resolution would have no practical effect, and that a Constitutional amendment eliminating corporate personhood – one of the primary objectives of resolution supporters – could have unintended consequences.

“The concept we are being asked to endorse on behalf of the city of Winston-Salem is a US constitutional amendment to make a broad-ranging change in the legal status of all corporations,” Besse wrote in an e-mail to fellow council members, City Manager Lee Garrity and City Attorney Angela Carmon earlier this month. “That change involves key legal implications that go far beyond the campaign finance issues addressed in the Citizens United case.”

Among other legalistic arguments, Besse cited a January 2012 editorial by Jeff Greenfield arguing that depriving corporations of rights of personhood could potentially hurt people who band together through non-profit corporations to make their voices heard.

Following the meeting, Besse and Carmon huddled with Leight and West Ward Councilman Robert Clark, discussing the legal implications of the resolution.

Afterwards, Leight said she doesn’t necessarily support the resolution in the language proposed by Occupy Winston-Salem.

“The heart of the matter I am in agreement with,” she said. “I think we have to find a way to state it without depriving corporations of their rights. But we don’t want them to be able to buy elections.”

If Leight ends up reversing herself, it would not be the first time she has taken a more cautious position after consulting with Carmon. Leight and Adams expressed support last summer for intervening with the federal courts on behalf of Kalvin Michael Smith, who was convicted of severely beating Jill Marker through a shoddy investigation by the Winston-Salem Police Department. Later, on Carmon’s legal advice, they voted in closed session to take no action.

Tony Ndege of Occupy Winston-Salem said there’s room for give and take on the final language of the resolution, to an extent.

“Two things we’re not going to compromise on is overturning Citizens United and the movement to amend corporate personhood,” he said.

Dozens of supporters attended the meeting, including Democracy North Carolina organizer and Forsyth County Board of Elections Chairwoman Linda Sutton. Kim Porter of Occupy Winston-Salem said organizers have collected 1,150 signatures in support of the resolution, including 900 from Winston-Salem. Among the signatories are NC Sen. Earline Parmon, Forsyth County Commissioner Everette Witherspoon and the Rev. Willard Bass.




Dan Besse

“It seems to me like there’s this ocean, this wave, this tide of greed that has every potential to destroy our entire civilization – the planetary civilization," Greg Gunter, a Richmond, Va. resident who is visiting his family in Winston-Salem, told council.."Our agriculture system is unsustainable. Because it’s cheap to be unsustainable. A lot of these massive corporations are so blind they don’t realize that climbing the corporate ladder only leads to a hole in the ground.”

Guest editorial: City council should support people over corporations

Guest editorial from Eric Fink:

The YES! Weekly blog (1/08/2013) reports on Winston-Salem City Council member Dan Besse's opposition to a proposed resolution concerning the legal status of corporations. Having worked with Occupy Winston-Salem and other groups on this issue, I wish to offer a response to Besse's objections.

First, Besse argues that the city council should not even consider the proposed resolution, because it is somehow beyond the purview of local government. Accepting the premise that "city councils should limit their actions to matters that directly affect their mandated responsibilities," it by no means supports the conclusion that the city council should ignore this issue.

The corrosive effect of corporate power on democracy is very much a local concern. Unrestricted corporate money distorts the electoral process, including elections for local government bodies like city councils. Unfettered corporate influence distorts public policy, including policy on core matters of local government responsibility like land use, transportation and education.

Given the direct and substantial impact of corporate power on local politics and policy, it is absolutely proper for local government representatives to educate themselves and the people they serve, and to speak up in defense of democracy.

Second, Besse cites various progressive legal scholars who have suggested that broad-brush criticisms of "corporate personhood" are misplaced. These are scholars I greatly admire, and whose work I greatly respect. In speaking publicly on this issue to groups like Occupy Winston-Salem, I have made similar points. Yet once again, Besse moves from a sound premise to an erroneous conclusion.

The valid and crucial point that professors Greenfield, Epps and Witt have made is that people — real flesh and blood people — frequently join together and take collective action on important political and social issues. But these organized groups — even when constituted under the legal label of a "corporation" — have little in common with the business corporations that are the true concern of those who views the Citizens United decision, and the unchecked power it ratified, as a grave threat to democracy. As Professor Witt himself notes, there is a crucial difference between "ordinary people... get[ting] together and form[ing] groups" and business corporations "invested with powerful amounts of capital."

Apart from the difference in wealth, which is itself considerable, there is a vast difference in structure and governance. When a business corporation "speaks," is a ventriloquist's dummy, operated by a board of directors that is, in practice, unaccountable to anyone, including the shareholders who supposedly own the corporations and whose money the directors are spending.

To equate political action by membership organizations or nonprofits with political action by business corporations is to commit a serious error, with serious consequences. It is the latter that concerns those who are working to build support for legal reforms aimed at curbing the "power of Big Money in our politics" (as Professor Greenfield nicely puts it). If the wording of the proposed resolution (which I have not seen) is too broad, the appropriate response is not to dismiss it out of hand, but to refine it.

Louis Brandeis famously warned, "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." The Winston-Salem City Council, like its counterpart in Greensboro and so many other local government bodies across the country that have already acted, has a responsibility to defend democracy against plutocracy.

Eric Fink is an associate professor at Elon University School of Law in Greensboro.

Supporters expect Winston-Salem City Council to address Citizens United on Tuesday

Occupy Winston-Salem has indicated in a mass e-mail that Councilman James Taylor Jr. "will likely" make a motion to introduce a resolution on Tuesday calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. FEC decision, which allows unlimited corporate money in elections.

The item is not on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting, and Taylor could not be immediately reached to confirm that he intends to make the motion.

Meanwhile, Eric Fink, an associate professor at Elon University School of Law in Greensboro, argues in a guest editorial submitted to YES! Weekly that Councilman Dan Besse is wrong to assert that Citizens United is beyond the purview of the city council:

The corrosive effect of corporate power on democracy is very much a local concern. Unrestricted corporate money distorts the electoral process, including elections for local government bodies like city councils. Unfettered corporate influence distorts public policy, including policy on core matters of local government responsibility like land use, transportation and education.

Besse has said, "Either we end up taking policy stances on issues on which we're poorly informed, or we have to put a great deal of research and development into topics on which we can effectively do nothing."




UPDATE: Kim Porter and Tony Ndege with Occupy Winston-Salem say that Taylor has committed to bringing the resolution up tomorrow. A number of elected officials, including NC Sen. Earline Parmon, Forsyth County Commissioner Everette Witherspoon and Forsyth County Commissioner Walter Marshall have signed on as supporters of the resolution.

"I think we have a good chance of passing it because it makes sense and it affects local politicians and local constituents," Porter said. "People discouraged us, but we just fought on anyway. That just shows we don't give up when we feel the moral ground is on our side."

A progressive argument against anti-corporate personhood resolutions

Winston-Salem Councilman Dan Besse holds a reputation within the NC Democratic Party as a progressive. He ran for lieutenant governor in 2008 on a platform of public investment and environmental protection, but ended up splitting the urban vote with fellow progressive Democrat Hampton Dellinger in a Democratic primary that promoted the more moderate Walter Dalton to the office.

As a council member, Besse has consistently backed the city's efforts to renovate Union Station near Winston-Salem State University to reintroduce rail service to the Twin City. And Besse was the most vocal advocate on council for investment in a streetcar system to stimulate commercial development and provide a link an attractive transit link from downtown to WSSU and Hanes Mall in 2012, although the majority ultimately decided against a bond referendum considering the precarious state of the budget.

So it's a bit ironic that Besse has found himself at odds with Occupy Winston-Salem, first on the group's right to public assembly and now through his opposition to a resolution by city council calling on the US Congress to amend the Constitution to deny corporations the rights of natural persons. He told me in an e-mail today that he reached out to his fellow council members last week to share some information that he believes they ought to consider before moving forward, and that he's sensitive that his stance puts him "at risk of being misunderstood as anti-progressive."

Besse said he has taken a consistent position that city councils should limit their actions to matters that directly affect their mandated responsibilities. 

"Either we end up taking policy stances on issues on which we're poorly informed, or we have to put a great deal of research and development into topics on which we can effectively do nothing," he told me.

Besse told his fellow council members, City Manager Lee Garrity and City Attorney Angela Carmon that, putting aside whether this is a matter that should be consuming the council's attention, there are reasons for progressives to be cautious about endorsing an amendment to the Constitution to deny corporations the rights of personhood.

"The concept we are being asked to endorse on behalf of the city of Winston-Salem is a US constitutional amendment to make a broad-ranging change in the legal status of all corporations," he said. "That change involves key legal implications that go far beyond the campaign finance issues addressed in the Citizens United case."

As a reference to progressive arguments against a constitutional amendment, Besse provided links to an article by Kent Greenfield in the Huffington Post and one by Garrett Epps in the American Prospect.

Take-away from Greenfield:

Many cases important to progressive ideals were brought by groups, associations and corporations, not by natural persons. The case that saved Roe v. Wade in 1992 was Planned Parenthood v. Casey. NAACP v. Button was a crucial case to the civil rights movement. When Nixon wanted to quash the publication of the Pentagon Papers, it was the New York Times that fought to protect the public's right to know, in New York Times v. United States.  Rumsfeld v. FAIR, a case that challenged the Pentagon on Don't Ask Don't Tell, was brought by a non-profit corporation (which I founded and led), which had as its members other non-natural "persons" (universities, law schools and law school faculties).

Besse also posts a link to an NPR interview with John Witt, a professor of law and history at Yale University, who says this:

I don't think we'd want to end corporate personhood in the sense that ordinary people, including people in the Occupy Wall Street movement, may want to get together and form groups, which should have respect of the legal process. What we might want to do, and this is what the Occupy Wall Street folks have right, is recognize the different characteristic features of large groups invested with powerful amounts of capital in our political process.

The legal doctrine establishing corporate personhood is widely considered to go back to the Supreme Court's decision in Santa Clara County  v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886. Witt told NPR's Melissa Block that corporations are considered "metaphysical persons," meaning persons for some purposes but not for others.

"For example, a corporation can be prosecuted for a crime, which is something that usually only persons can be prosecuted for," Witt said. "But on the other hand, corporations get rights. They get rights to contract. They can't marry or run for office, but they can speak."

Besse said he expects his colleague, Councilman James Taylor Jr., to bring a resolution against corporate personhood up for a vote by council on Jan. 21.

"From a practical standpoint, there is also the question of whether a constitutional amendment is the most effective way to pursue change in this arena," Besse told his fellow council members. "My personal view is that it is not, given the rarity and extreme difficulty of success. Personally, I think the only realistic prospect for change in this area will come from new appointments to the Supreme Court who choose to return to a century of prior precedent in the area of campaign finance law — prior court decisions were precipitously overset by the Citizens United decision."

Winston-Salem City Council will consider resolution against Citizens United

Tony Ndege of Occupy Winston-Salem addresses city council.

Winston-Salem City Council member James Taylor Jr. said he has filed a request to put a resolution calling for a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision on council's agenda.

Council members heard from nine people requesting the resolution, and organizers said Occupy Winston-Salem and Democracy North Carolina have collected signatures from at least 800 people in support of the move.

"Tonight we're asking you to take a stand for your constituents," said Debra Demske of Winston-Salem after mentioning the role of corporate campaign money in local elections.

Tony Ndege of Occupy Winston-Salem said the request was timed to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the group's first public meeting outside City Hall. Ndege said organizers have had promising discussions with council members Molly Leight and Derwin Montgomery, and pledged to mobilize large numbers of citizens in support of the resolution when it comes up for a vote in January.

One council member has remained opposed to the initiative since it was first floated last summer.

"I am publicly in accord with the idea of reversing the Citizens United decision," Councilman Dan Besse said before tonight's meeting. "I think it was a badly decided decision. However, I think that is a personal position. My constituents don't send me to city council to work on my personal agenda. I'm here to work on infrastructure and services that the city's responsible for."

The US Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United decision that the government cannot restrict campaign finance expenditures by groups operating independently of candidate committees. The decision gave rise to so-called "super PACs," which can spend unlimited amounts of money airing negative ads against political candidates.

The Winston-Salem residents pushing for council action on Citizens United received outside support from Barbara Carrano, with the Peoples Coalition Against Citizens United, who helped lead the effort to persuade the Greensboro City Council to pass a similar resolution, and from Melissa Price Kromm, director of NC Voters for Clean Elections.

"Citizens United has created a huge imbalance in our country," Carrano said. "I believe that all that has gone wrong in America is directly or indirectly connected with corporate greed. Citizens United makes it legal for money to equal speech in this country. That is wrong."

Kim Thore of Winston-Salem told council about her experience working as a senior manager for a bank and how she decided to quit the corporate track when she was asked to contribute to the bank's political action committee and realized that her own money would be advancing a corporate agenda based only on profit. 

"Those funds would support legislation that would lead to the mortgage crisis," she said.

Will Cox said corporate money in politics is relevant to Winston-Salem because it started as a company town that was virtually run by RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., and members of the Reynolds, Hanes and Gray families took turns serving as mayor. He said the current council is better than that.

Kromm said she is confident the Winston-Salem City Council will pass the resolution, joining 12 other municipalities that have already done so, including Greensboro, Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Asheville. 

"The Congress has been bought," she said. "Every state legislature has been bought. The only recourse the people have is to their local city councils for redress."

Citizens will ask Winston-Salem City Council for resolution against Citizens United

Citizens organized by Occupy Winston-Salem and Democracy North Carolina plan to go before Winston-Salem City Council tonight and to request a resolution in opposition to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision.

The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that the government cannot restrict campaign finance expenditures by groups operating independent of candidate committees. The decision gave rise to so-called "super PACs," which can spend unlimited amounts of money airing negative ads attacking the opponent of the candidate the committee wants to help elect.

The Greensboro City Council passed a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in October. The cities of Raleigh, Durham, Asheville and Greensville, along with seven other municipalities had already approved similar resolutions at the time.

The Winston-Salem City Council meeting begins at 7 p.m. Those who wish to speak should show up 15 minutes early.