DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fair Elections Now Act: a Comprehensive Response to Citizens United

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fair Elections Now Act: a Comprehensive Response to Citizens United S. HRG. 112–935 THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT: A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO CITIZENS UNITED HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 12, 2011 Serial No. J–112–15 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 94–623 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JON KYL, Arizona AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COBURN, Oklahoma JOSEPH ZOGBY, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel (II) C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 1 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement .............................................................................................................. 33 WITNESSES Witness List ............................................................................................................. 29 Simpson, Hon. Alan, former U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, Cody, Wyoming ............................................................................................................... 4 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 Mitchell, Cleta, Partner, Foley & Lardner, Washington, DC .............................. 7 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 Youn, Monica, Senior Counsel, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Jus- tice at New York University School of Law, New York, New York ................. 9 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 QUESTIONS Questions submitted by Senator Graham for Cleta Mitchell ............................... 73 ANSWERS Responses of Cleta Mitchell to questions submitted by Senator Graham .......... 74 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview, Civic Leaders for Fair Elections ................................................................................... 75 Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview, Gov- ernment Leaders for Fair Elections .................................................................... 76 Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview, Build- ing the Movement for Reform ............................................................................. 77 American Constitution Society, Monica Youn, Washington, DC, June 2010, Brief ....................................................................................................................... 78 Who’s Buying Campaign Finance Reform? Notes/Bibliography .......................... 99 Additional Document for the Record, Senator Lindsey Graham, April 12, 2011, Web Site link .............................................................................................. 107 Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, President, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ...................................................................................................................... 108 AFSCME, Charles M. Loveless, Director of Legislation, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ............................................................................................ 109 American Sustainable Business Council, David Levine, Co-Founder, Executive Director, Washington, DC, April 7, 2011, letter ................................................ 110 Lake Research Partners, Celinda Lake, President, Washington, DC, April 18, 2011, letter ..................................................................................................... 111 Boston Globe, ‘‘The High Cost of Private Campaign Funding,’’ by Daniel Weeks, November 19, 2009, article ..................................................................... 113 Center for Competitive Politics, Sean Parnell, President, Alexandria, Virginia, statement .............................................................................................................. 114 Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI), Lawrence S. Ottinger, President, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ............................................ 120 (III) IV Page CREW, Melanie Sloan, Executive Director, Washington, DC, September 21, 2010, letter ............................................................................................................ 121 Democracy Matters, Joan Mandle, Executive Director, Hamilton, New York, April 7, 2011, letter .............................................................................................. 123 Democracy for America, Jim Dean, Chair, South Burlington, Vermont, letter .. 124 Demos, Miles Rapoport, President, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ...... 125 Detroit News, May 8, 2010, article ......................................................................... 127 U.S. News, Noteworthy Facts and Figures Related to Money and Politics, Fred Wertheimer, April 11, 2011, fact sheet ..................................................... 128 Common Cause, Bob Edgar, President, and Sarah Dufendach, Vice President for Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ....................... 129 Members of Congress and Time Spent Fundraising, report ................................ 131 Main Street Alliance, Sam Blair, Network Director, Seattle, Washington, April 8, 2011, letter .............................................................................................. 133 NAACP, Hilary O. Shelton, Director, Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy, Washington, DC, April 7, 2011, letter ............................................ 134 Public Advocate for the City of New York, December 2010, report ..................... 135 Progress Now, Aniello Alioto, National Political Director, St. Paul, Minnesota, April 11, 2011, letter ............................................................................................ 151 Lioz, Adam, Program Director and Counsel, Progressive Future, Washington, DC, letter .............................................................................................................. 152 Progressives United, Russell D. Feingold, former U.S. Senator, Founder, Mid- dleton, Wisconsin, April 11, 2011, letter ............................................................ 153 Public Campaign, Nick Nyhart, President and CEO, Washington, DC, April 12, 2011, letter ..................................................................................................... 154 Public Citizen, David Arkush, Director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Divi- sion and Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist, Washington, DC, April 6, 2011, letter .............................................................................................. 156 Public Citizen, David Arkush, Director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Divi- sion and Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist, Washington, DC, April 12, 2011, statement .................................................................................... 157 Rock the Vote, Thomas Bates, Vice President, Civic Engagement, Washington, DC, April 8, 2011, letter ...................................................................................... 161 Roll Call, June 23, 2010, article ............................................................................. 162 Democracy21, Fred Wertheimer, President, Washington, DC, April 2011, fact sheet ...................................................................................................................... 163 Sierra Club, Michael Brune, Executive Director, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ............................................................................................................ 168 U.S. News and World Report, ‘‘Taxpayer Checkoff Protects Against Corrup- tion,’’ April 11, 2011, article ................................................................................ 169 USA Today, ‘‘Biggest Election Winner: Big Money,’’ November 5, 2010, arti- cle .......................................................................................................................... 171 US Action,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 6 What's Wrong with the Employee Free Choice Act?
    6 What’s Wrong with the Employee Free Choice Act? Richard A. Epstein he first one hundred days of the Obama administration have been marked by its determination to pass the revolu- T tionary Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which was introduced in Congress on March 10, 2009. As of this writing, it looks as though the bill will not pass this year, given the unanimous Republican opposition to it in the Senate. But the issue is likely to be revived again during the Obama presidency, as it has been before, so it is important to examine its provisions because it raises important issues of principle. In addition, it has gathered an impressive level of political and intellectual support. In particular, the EFCA has received the endorsement of the Democratic National Convention Platform Committee of prominent economists, under the aegis of the Economic Policy Institute, and of President Obama and Vice President Biden. In a recent congressional hearing before the 110th Congress on February 8, the EFCA was defended as the means to return to the management-labor balance under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the NLRA, in its original form is commonly referred to as the Wagner Act), said to be the surest way to revive the fortunes of a shrinking middle class. The reality, however, is otherwise. The EFCA would hamper the efficiency of labor markets in ways that make the road to economic 89 90 REACTING TO THE SPENDING SPREE recovery far steeper than necessary. Generally, it will severely hurt the very persons whom it intends to help.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Democrats Progress on EFCA Compromise by Jay P
    Senate Democrats Progress on EFCA Compromise by Jay P. Krupin and Steven Swirsky July 2009 The past several days have brought potentially significant developments with respect to Senate Democrats’ efforts to enact labor law reform and bring the Employee Free Choice Act to a vote on the Senate floor. Reports have circulated that a consensus has begun to emerge among Senate Democrats for a bill that would remove EFCA’s controversial provisions eliminating secret ballot elections where a union has obtained signatures from more than 50 percent of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit, and instead would provide for significantly faster NLRB-conducted elections, within five to ten days of the filing of a representation petition. The bill would also provide for greater access to employees and to employer property during the campaign period. Presently, NLRB-conducted elections are typically held an average of 45 days after the union files a petition. Along with faster elections, the reported compromise would include increased access by unions to employer premises to campaign among employees, as well as increased restrictions on employer campaign rights. EFCA’s other most controversial component, compulsory binding arbitration of the economic and other terms of initial collective bargaining agreements where the parties do not quickly reach agreement, is reported to remain a part of the compromise bill. While the Democrats reached 60 votes in the Senate when Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and Al Franken was finally declared the victor over Norm Coleman in Minnesota, the fact is that there remain a substantial block of Democratic senators who have expressed doubt about EFCA’s card check language and who have indicated that they are not prepared to support a bill that would eliminate secret ballot elections.
    [Show full text]
  • The Employee Free Choice Act: the Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak
    LABOR LAW REGIONAL LABOR REVIEW, Fall 2009 The Employee Free Choice Act: The Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak One of the most contentious proposals of the 2008 Presidential campaign and of the current Congressional season in Washington is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Supported by President Obama and opposed by Senator John McCain and most other Republicans, EFCA would be the most significant change to federal labor law in over sixty years. First, EFCA would allow the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to certify a union without an election if a majority of workers voluntarily sign cards authorizing a union to represent them (this provision is also known as “card check”). Second, EFCA would impose new penalties on employers who violate workers’ rights during initial organizing campaigns. And third, EFCA would permit bargaining disputes between an employer and union to be decided by arbitration during first-time contract negotiations. However, several powerful groups are opposed to any change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a vociferous campaign against EFCA’s “Card Check” provision, which they claim will lead to intimidation and coercion in the workplace.1 Congressional Republicans have also been outspoken opponents of card check. Last February, Republican Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act, S. 478. This bill would make it illegal for an employer to voluntarily recognize a union through card check and would require NLRB elections. While many are opposed to EFCA, it cannot be denied that reform is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ford Broadcasts, 1967-1968” of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box D37, folder “Ford Broadcasts, 1967-1968” of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. ~ REPUBliCAN GONGRES.SIONAl NEWS BUREAU 312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL • WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LINCOLN 4-301 0 Monday, F\!bruary 27, 1967 Acting on the heels of a House Special Committee racommcndation of censure and other penaltbs for Rep. Adem Clayton Powell (D. of N.Y.), some 30 freshmen House Re- publicans today proposed legislation to set up permanent House machinery to deal with unethical conduct of tvbmbers, officers and employees. Led by Rep. George Bush of Taxes, the R,3publican Congressmen sponsored Hous3 Resolutions to establish o Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and to provide, among other things, 11 full disclosura of assets, liabilities, honorariums, etc., by Members, their spouses and staff members whose salaries exceed $15,000 gross annually ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy
    The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s Foreign Policy Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay The Brookings Institution April 2003 George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid his predecessor’s mistake in “overcommitting our military around the world.”1 During his first seven months as president he focused his attention primarily on domestic affairs. That all changed over the succeeding twenty months. The United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups operating on their soil. Rather than cheering American humility, people and governments around the world denounced American arrogance. Critics complained that the motto of the United States had become oderint dum metuant—Let them hate as long as they fear. September 11 explains why foreign policy became the consuming passion of Bush’s presidency. Once commercial jetliners plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is unimaginable that foreign policy wouldn’t have become the overriding priority of any American president. Still, the terrorist attacks by themselves don’t explain why Bush chose to respond as he did. Few Americans and even fewer foreigners thought in the fall of 2001 that attacks organized by Islamic extremists seeking to restore the caliphate would culminate in a war to overthrow the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the path from the smoking ruins in New York City and Northern Virginia to the battle of Baghdad was not the case of a White House cynically manipulating a historic catastrophe to carry out a pre-planned agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Hearing for Deputy Secretary of Labor and Members of the National Labor Relations Board
    S. HRG. 115–374 NOMINATION HEARING FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HEARING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON NOMINATION FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JULY 13, 2017 Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26–334 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania RAND PAUL, Kentucky AL FRANKEN, Minnesota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia TIM SCOTT, South Carolina MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director LINDSEY WARD SEIDMAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director EVAN SCHATZ, Minority Staff Director JOHN RIGHTER, Minority Deputy Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER CONTENTS STATEMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017 Page COMMITTEE MEMBERS Alexander, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on the Litigation Lobby
    CENTER FOR LEGAL POLICY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE C L P STREET NW A REPORT ON THE LITIGATION LOBBY 2010 A Message from the Director merica’s litigation-friendly legal system continues to im- law is, for the most part, crafted by state judges rather than en- A pose a heavy burden on our economy. The annual direct acted by state legislatures, these efforts have centered on ensuring cost of American tort litigation—excluding much securities liti- a friendly judiciary, whether appointed or elected. gation, punitive damages, and the multibillion-dollar settlement With business groups now fighting back against Trial Lawyers, reached between the tobacco companies and the states in 1998— Inc.’s longtime grip on state judiciaries, the litigation lobby has exceeds $250 billion, almost 2 percent of gross domestic prod- turned its attention to state legislatures, where it is not only block- uct.1 The indirect costs of excessive litigiousness (for example, the ing tort reforms but working to expand its portfolio of litigation unnecessary tests and procedures characterizing the practice of opportunities. Among other things, state legislators are authoriz- “defensive” medicine, or the loss of the fruits of research never ing new kinds of lawsuits, raising damage caps, and giving private undertaken on account of the risk of abusive lawsuits) are prob- lawyers authority to sue on behalf of the state. ably much greater than the direct costs themselves.2 Of course, the growth in federal regulation and law has made Of course, tort litigation does do some good, and it does deter it necessary for Trial Lawyers, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Iowa Before the Iowa Utilities Board in Re: ) Itc Midwest Llc ) Docket No. E-22386 Dairyland Power Cooperative ) ______
    Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on February 17, 2020, E-22386 STATE OF IOWA BEFORE THE IOWA UTILITIES BOARD IN RE: ) ITC MIDWEST LLC ) DOCKET NO. E-22386 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE ) ________________________________________________________________________ Reply Brief of Linda E. Grice in Opposition to the Cardinal Hickory Creek Project I. Introduction The CEI Intervenors, a group of well-funded lobbyists wants to silence the voices of citizen and ratepayer intervenors in the CHC Project because they do not feel their voices are relevant or credible. They say citizen intervenors lack basis. The Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate is afraid that when the truth gets out concerning how, poorly they defend the rights of Iowa Citizens that Iowans will become discouraged and not contact their office for help. The Applicants and the CEI say that wind energy is cheap yet can’t put a number on its’ cost. CEI opines on the fact that MS Grice objects to what she claims is Iowa’s transformation from an agricultural state into an “industrial energy generation complex” without citizen input. (Grice Pre-Hearing Brief at 3.) CEI states Ms. Grice ignored established state law that helped facilitate this. The argument in this brief will address these issues and provide documentation to support the conclusions. Linda Grice Reply Brief 1 Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on February 17, 2020, E-22386 II. Argument The CEI wants to eliminate citizen and ratepayer voices so their argument cannot be refuted. In the Dubuque hearing of the CHC Transmission line four citizen intervenors stood alone against large sums being spent to silence them.
    [Show full text]
  • Employee Free Choice Act What It Means for You
    JUNE 2009 54224_P01_32_x2.indd 1 6/21/09 11:00:58 PM President’s Page Employee Free Choice Act What It Means For You uch that is written on the front pages of tively—free from coercion, intimidation, and retali- Mnewspapers all across America on the Em- ation, exactly what is needed to rebuild the middle ployee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been about class. We know the erosion of the middle class fol- the battle lines drawn by Big Business and La- lows in the footprints of the steady decline of work- bor on this issue. It is easy to get caught up in ers’ rights over the past several decades. Below are the politics of it all, but the American public de- some of the reasons the Act is so important, and serves an answer to the question, “Is this good why the Iron Workers and the building trades have for America right now?” The U.S. House of Rep- supported passage of the EFCA in Congress: resentatives passed the EFCA on March 1, 2007 When workers in a non-union workplace at- by a 241-185 majority. However, though a ma- tempt to form support for a union, they are of- jority of the Senate supported the EFCA, a Re- ten times harassed and intimidated; 25 percent publican fi libuster blocked it. Published reports of companies unlawfully fi re pro-union workers. state approximately 60 million unrepresented The current laws against such corporate mis- Americans would join a union if given a chance. conduct are so weak companies often treat them The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Employee Free Choice Act – What’S an Employer to Do?
    Reprinted with permission from the New York State Bar Association Journal, September 2009, Vol. 81, No. 7, published by the New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, New York 12207. POINT OF VIEW BY EVE I. KLEIN, BRUCE J. KASTEN AND JOANNA R. VARON EVE I. KLEIN ([email protected]) is a partner at Duane Morris LLP in New York City practic- ing in the area of employment law, labor relations and litigation. She earned her law degree from Cornell Law School and her undergraduate degree, with distinction, from Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. BRUCE J. KASTEN ([email protected]) is a partner at Duane Morris LLP in Philadelphia, practicing in the areas of employment law, labor relations and employment litigation. He is a graduate of the Columbus School of Law of The Catholic University of America and earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Scranton. JOANNA R. VARON ([email protected]) is an associate at Duane Morris LLP in New York City. She received her law degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she was senior articles editor of the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal. She received her undergraduate degree, with high honors, from Rutgers University. The Employee Free Choice Act – What’s an Employer to Do? he labor movement’s top legisla- any corresponding increase in penal- cess; (3) potential revisions to EFCA; tive priority, the Employee Free ties for union misconduct. and (4) steps employers can take to TChoice Act (EFCA), proposes The chances for passage of at least be ready for the changes the EFCA is the most sweeping set of amendments some version of the EFCA this year expected to have on the organizing to the National Labor Relations Act have improved dramatically from last and collective bargaining processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Smugglers Or Samaritans in Tucson, Arizona: Producing and Contesting Legal Truth
    smugglers or samaritans in Tucson, Arizona: producing and contesting legal truth SUSAN BIBLER COUTIN-North Adams State College In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of a nun, a minister, two priests, and four lay people convicted of conspiring to harbor, transport, and conceal the unlawful entry of undocumented Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants. The court's decision removed this conflict between the U.S. government and members of the U.S. sanctuary movement (a grassroots network of congregations that had declared themselves sanctuaries for undocu- mented Central American refugees)1 from the last forum of truth in the formal legal system. The designation of convicted sanctuary workers as alien-smugglers had officially been made permanent. Despite the seeming decisiveness of this outcome, however, the very acts that constituted these sanctuary workers as criminals enabled defendants to promote competing assessments of their actions. Before they were indicted, the threat of criminal charges led sanctuary workers to develop complex legal, moral, and religious justifications for their work with Central Americans. The 1985-86 trial gave defendants the opportunity to bring these justifications before a wide audience. Following the trial, convicted sanctuary workers and their colleagues used their increased knowledge of surveillance and law to leave a record that they felt would define their actions as law-abiding rather than criminal. Paradoxically, prosecution and surveillance simultaneously criminalized and exonerated sanctuary workers. The legal conflict between the sanctuary movement and the U.S. government sheds light on how particulartechnologies of power, such as surveillance and prosecution, facilitate resistance even as they repress.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of Anti-Muslim Mobilization in a Rural Great Plains
    “The Real Issue Is…”: A Case Study of Anti-Muslim Mobilization in a Rural Great Plains Community Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Sarah R. Walton, B.A. Graduate Program in Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University 2018 Thesis Committee Professor Cathy Rakowski, Advisor Professor Jill Clark Professor Linda Lobao Copyrighted by Sarah R. Walton 2018 1 Abstract Recent studies by the Southern Poverty Law Center have noted a rise in organized anti-Muslim activism over the last three years. A number of these organized, violent mobilizations have occurred in nonmetropolitan areas. This is partially due to the fact that meatpacking facilities are increasingly located in small cities or rural areas in the Midwest or Great Plains and recruit Muslim African immigrant and refugee workers. This has resulted in a secondary migration of Muslims, particularly Somalis, to smaller meatpacking communities in the Midwest or Great Plains, creating new contexts for ethnic conflict. To date, rural hate groups, specifically these emergent anti-Muslim mobilizations, are not well understood. I seek to determine the justifications and mobilization strategies used in these anti-Muslim mobilizations. I undertake a case study of an anti-Muslim hate group in a small Great Plains community. My core research questions are: 1) How does this group justify their anti-Muslim activism?; and 2) What elements of the group's rhetoric seem to resonate with the local community? I utilize a social movements perspective to analyze transcripts from the hate group's public meetings, a public town hall meeting with a local refugee resettlement agency, and the content of the hate group's public Facebook page (454 group posts; 1,370 individual comments).
    [Show full text]