After the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate money in American elections, the decision’s defenders claimed this wasn’t such a big deal because unions could also take advantage of the decision. A new report by three leading voting rights and judicial independence groups gives the lie to this claim. According to the report, just three corporate interest groups — The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council of Alabama, and the Illinois Civil Justice League spent more than 13 times as much trying to influence state supreme court elections as the entire labor movement:

The report focuses on the 2009-10 cycle, so it does not include the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court race where incumbent Justice David Prosser narrowly defeated a progressive challenger after corporate front groups rode to his rescue with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of funds.

Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed Judge Alison Nathan to a federal judgeship in New York. Shockingly, Nathan is only the third openly gay attorney confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, and President Obama is only the second president to place an out judge on the bench.

The lion’s share of Nathan’s confirmation process went without serious controversy. Nathan’s nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by a lopsided 14-4 vote, and, even in this hyperobstructionist Senate, Republicans agreed not to filibuster Nathan’s nomination and allow her to go straight to a confirmation vote. By the week of the vote, Nathan appeared poised to be confirmed in a walk.

Then, the day of her confirmation vote, the Senate GOP suddenly decided that Alison Nathan was a very dangerous woman. She was confirmed — but on an entirely party line vote. As Julie Bolcer reports, this decision came immediately after two anti-gay groups decided to oppose the nomination:

Schumer said he received a “friendly call” from one of his Republican colleagues about 90 minutes before the vote on October 14 to tell him that their conference planned to oppose the nominee uniformly. The senators had received an alert about the nominee from the conservative Heritage Action for America, which scores lawmakers on their votes, and a letter from the Concerned Women for America that took direct aim at Nathan’s sexual orientation.

“Nathan has a long history as political activism with Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) which calls into question her impartiality and judicial temperament,” said the letter, which cited her work as a member of the LGBT policy committee for the Obama campaign in 2008, and her pro-bono representation for groups including the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

So let’s be clear what happened here. Alison Nathan is a brilliant lawyer and former Supreme Court clerk. Half the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee saw no problem with making her a judge. No one in the Republican Caucus objected to giving her an up or down vote on the Senate floor. And then two anti-gay organizations threw tantrum, and the Senate GOP turned on a dime to oppose her.

There was a time in this country when thousands of Native American children were forced from their homes by public and private agencies, then sent to boarding schools where the school founder’s motto was “Kill the Indian, Save the Man.” This practice wiped out cultural ties and traditions from an entire generation on which tribes depended to carry on their legacies. In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law meant to ensure that Native American children stay with Native American families, especially when placed in foster care.

But an NPR investigation reveals that 32 states are “failing to abide by the act,” with the most egregious violations occurring in South Dakota. In this state, “Native American children make up only 15 percent of the child population, yet they make up more than half the children in foster care.” According to the investigation, “the state is removing 700 native children a year, sometimes in questionable circumstances,” claiming generic “neglect” when there isn’t any. State records reveal that “almost 90 percent of the kids in family foster care are in non-native homes or group care.”

Meanwhile, these questionable decisions to break up families create a massive inflow of federal money into the state:

Every time a state puts a child in foster care, the federal government sends money. Because South Dakota is poor, it receives even more money than other states – almost a hundred million dollars a year.[...]

Then there’s the bonus money. Take for example something the federal government calls the “adoption incentive bonus.” States receive money if they move kids out of foster care and into adoption — about $4,000 a child. But according to federal records, if the child has “special needs,” a state can get as much as $12,000.

A decade ago, South Dakota designated all Native American children “special needs,” which means Native American children who are permanently removed from their homes are worth more financially to the state than other children.

In 10 years, this adoption bonus program has brought South Dakota almost a million dollars.

As an example, the Children’s Home Society, the state’s largest foster care provider, has close ties to the state. As NPR notes, the foster home used to be run by state Gov. Dennis Daugard who “was on the group’s payroll while he was a lieutenant governor — and while the group received tens of millions of dollars in no-bid state contracts.” Meanwhile, tribal foster homes remain empty.

State officials insist that the money never played a part in the state’s decision to remove a child. “The state doesn’t financially benefit from kids being in care,” said one official. “The state is always paying some part of it.” But as state records show, the federal government reimbursed the state “for almost three quarters of the money it spent on foster care.”

Essentially, the state is removing children under nebulous circumstances and getting a huge pay out in return. As on tribal social worker put it, “they make a living off off our children.”

Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court reached the rather obvious conclusion that unlimited campaign donations are an invitation to corruption — if just one wealthy individual can fund a politician’s entire campaign, then that politician will likely do that donor’s bidding for their entire term in office. Thus, contribution limits were constitutional, because the Constitution allows lawmakers to protect society’s compelling interest in fighting corruption in politics.

As Rick Hasen explains, however, the Supreme Court took leave of its senses in Citizens United, deciding in that case that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Because of this decision, corporations now have free reign to spend as much money as they wanted to influence elections. How could spending millions of dollars to put a particular lawmaker in office possibly cause that lawmaker to feel beholden to their new corporate benefactor?

Now, Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) wants to take this even further. In essence, Lee just sought permission to set up his own slush fund, powered by unlimited corporate donors, and use this slush fund to buy influence with his fellow lawmakers by running ads in their districts:

Leadership PACs are political committees that sitting members of Congress (and others) set up to allow them to make contributions to other candidates and spend money to support their election. It is a way for a member of Congress to build influence.

Sen. Mike Lee’s Leadership PAC, the Constitutional Conservatives Fund PAC, has just asked the Federal Election Commission for permission to collect unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals for independent spending to elect other candidates. The SuperPAC’s lawyers argue that there’s no danger of corrupting these other candidates, because its spending to help them get elected will be independent of those candidates.

So Lee’s idea is that corporate CEOs, Wall Street tycoons and other well-moneyed interests can show up at his office and turn over completely unlimited amounts of funds. Lee can then buy new friends in Washington and in state governments by channeling these corporate funds to an army of grateful politicians. And the more money corporate America gives him, the more powerful Lee becomes — and the more he owes this new found power to his brand new corporate sugar daddies.

But, of course, nothing about this reeks of corruption. The Roberts Court tells us so.

One year ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) committed the genuinely daring act of endorsing a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution to declare much of the last century of American progress unconstitutional. In his book Fed Up! and a series of speeches, Perry claimed Medicare and Social Security both violate the Constitution. He questioned the constitutional underpinnings of essential laws such as the minimum wage or child labor laws. And he demanded that the federal government eliminate its role in ensuring that all Americans have access to a quality education.

Perry admission that he holds these radical beliefs showed serious audacity, but Perry is also an ambitious politician who doubtless read the Tea Party’s tea leaves and determined that it was in his political interest to come out as a tenther. Now that his campaign has run seriously off the rails, however, even Perry appears to recognize that outing himself as a tenther was not such a good way to advance his political career. Although Perry’s recently released economic plan would unquestionably be the most radical assault on America’s social safety net in nearly a century if it ever became law, it is also strangely moderate compared to Perry’s previous stance that Medicare, Social Security, and much of our educational infrastructure must be eliminated entirely because they are unconstitutional:

• Social Security: As Travis Waldron reported yesterday, Perry’s new position on Social Security is a George W. Bush-esque proposal to turn millions of Americans’ retirement funds over to Wall Street through privatization. This is a dangerous and radical idea, but it is a far cry from Perry’s original position that the very idea of providing Social Security to America’s seniors is an “assault” on the Constitution itself.
• Medicare: Perry also supports a number of terrible Medicare proposals, including a Paul Ryan-style plan to voucherize Medicare, “gradually raising the age of Medicare eligibility,” and reducing benefits for many seniors. These proposals could potentially phase out Medicare over time depending on how closely they map Ryan’s subtle plan to gradually eliminate Medicare. Nevertheless, Perry’s new willingness to allow something that vaguely resembles Medicare to continue to exist is a step back from his previous claim that Medicare “eroded our founding fathers’ boundaries that they had put upon the federal government.”
• Education: Perry also proposes cutting $25 billion in federal education funds — or about half of all funding for elementary and secondary education programs. This new position is only about 50 percent as radical as his previous statement that “I don’t think the federal government has a role in your children’s education.”

Let’s be absolutely clear. Perry’s proposals would be a disaster for the millions of Americans struggling to get by in a terrible economy. Worse, they directly target the most vulnerable Americans — seniors who have left the workforce and children who are still obtaining the skills they need to provide for themselves in the future. But compared to his previous view that nearly the entire Twentieth Century violates the Constitution, his new positions are quite a step back. Three months ago, Rick Perry was the most prominent and outspoken tenther in the country. Today, even Perry understands that outspoken tentherism is toxic.

This is the second installment in an ongoing series on voting rights leading up to Election Day 2011.

Pointing to a problem that doesn’t exist, Tennessee Republicans created a voter ID law this year which, they say, will ensure that only those eligible to vote can do so. As predicted, the law is disenfranchising the poor, elderly, and minority voters, including a 96-year-old African-American woman, a 91-year old woman, and now, a 86-year old veteran.

World War II veteran Darwin Spinks went to a testing center last month to get a photo ID for voting purposes. Under the law, any resident without a photo ID is supposed to get one free of charge. But when Spinks asked for an ID, he was told he had to pay an $8 fee:

Spinks said Tuesday he needed the photo because when his driver’s license with a photo expired the last time, the driver testing center issued him a new license without a photo on it. State law allows people over 60 to get a non-photo driver’s license.

The retired print shop worker who moved here 17 years ago said he told people at the driver center he wanted an ID for voting purposes. He was sent from one line to another to have a picture taken, then was charged.

“I said, ‘You mean I’ve got to pay again?’ She says, ‘Yes,’” explained Spinks, a resident of County Farm Road, who was stationed on the USS Goshen in World War II and was called to duty again for the Korean War.

Forcing an American citizen to pay in order to vote is a clear violation of the constitution’s 24th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or the other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” The amendment was specifically enacted in 1962 to end the poll tax, a fee that was used to prevent the black population from voting.

The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security said it will send Spinks a letter and an affidavit to sign which states that he does not have a valid government-issued photo ID. Only then will they refund his $8. “If he came in for a photo ID for voting purposes, he should not have been charged,” the department stated.

This is the first installment in an ongoing series on voting rights leading up to Election Day 2011.

Michigan may soon join states like Florida and Tennessee in implementing major new voting rights restrictions.

A new bill designed to make registering voters more difficult is currently working its way through the Republican-controlled legislature. As Project Vote details, SB 754 would put new regulations in place to require photo ID in order to register, create new restrictions on nonprofit organizations who register voters, and undercut voter registration drives by requiring completed registration forms to be submitted with 24 hours when the election is nearing:

First, SB 754 requires people trying to register at a government agency to bring state-issued photo ID with them. If they do not, their application will be treated like a mail registration.

Second, the bill creates numerous burdensome and irrelevant bureaucratic rules for nonprofit organizations engaged in voter registration efforts in Michigan. For example, a group would have to register with the Department of State and provide voluminous information, including the name and address of every agent of the organization who is helping to register voters in Michigan. Any changes in the information they submit must be reported promptly to the Department of State as well. [...]

Finally, any voter registration form collected by the organization within seven days of an election must be turned in to the election authorities within one business day. The combined effect of these requirements is that small nonprofits that help to register voters—such as religious organizations, civic groups, and the League of Women Voters—are forced to spend valuable staff time keeping up with onerous paperwork requirements and complying with unreasonable deadlines instead.

On the last provision, Michigan would go even further than Florida’s new onerous restrictions, where people conducting voter registration drives are now allowed just 48 hours to turn in completed forms. Estelle Rogers of Project Vote told ThinkProgress that Michigan’s proposed 24-hour submission window is “the worst turnaround time we’ve ever seen.”

As ThinkProgress has detailed, new voting rights restrictions like we may soon see in Michigan have popped up in states across the country this year. From Florida to Texas to Maine and elsewhere, Republican-controlled states have enacted major new legislation curbing voter registration rights, attacking the Voting Rights Act, disenfranchising millions with photo ID requirements, and repealing election day registration laws.

Earlier this year, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) signed the nation’s harshest anti-immigrant law — including provisions that intimidate undocumented children from attending school and which effectively make it a felony for many immigrants to take a shower in their own home. Much of this law has since been blocked by federal courts, but key provisions of the law are still in effect.

One provision that has yet to be struck down by a federal judge provides, with two exceptions, that “[n]o court of this state shall enforce the terms of, or otherwise regard as valid, any contract between a party and an alien unlawfully present in the United States.” In essence, it seeks to drive undocumented immigrants from the state by giving their landlords, employers, and other persons they do business with a free pass to exploit them. Federal judges have thus far allowed this provision to stand. Yet, as Alabama Circuit Judge Scott Vowell pointed out in an opinion yesterday, the anti-contracting provision still has to overcome a big obstacle — the Alabama state constitution’s command that

There can be no law of this state impairing the obligation of contracts by destroying or impairing the remedy for their enforcement; and the legislature shall have no power to revive any right or remedy which may have become barred by lapse of time, or by any statute of this state. After suit has been commenced on any cause of action, the legislature shall have no power to take away such cause of action, or destroy any existing defense to such suit.

Because Judge Vowell’s opinion deals with a breach of contract suit that was filed by an undocumented immigrant before the law took effect, his opinion merely holds that the anti-immigrant law cannot constitutionally be applied to those suits because “the legislature shall have no power to take away” people’s right to pursue contacts claims that are already pending. Nevertheless, Vowell also suggests that the entire anti-contracting provision may violate the state constitution’s requirement that no law may “destroy[] or impair[e] the remedy” for enforcing a contract in court.

Should the Alabama courts ultimately agree that the entire anti-contracting provision is unconstitutional under the state constitution, then the provision will cease to function even if the federal courts uphold it. State courts are allowed to apply state law independently of how federal courts handle questions of federal law.

In other words, it looks like Alabama’s assault on immigrants not only ignores the United States Constitution, it likely violates the Alabama Constitution as well.

In a valiant attempt to fight non-existent voter fraud, GOP lawmakers across the country have been passing legislation that systematically disenfranchises core Democratic constituencies by making it more difficult to vote. One of those groups — young voters — have chronically low turnout and report feeling disaffected by politics.

But high school teachers who are trying to combat that trend and get their students interested and involved in civic life are finding their mission at odds with the news laws created by Republican legislators, who would prefer young voters just stay home. Florida high school teacher Jill Cicciarelli recently discovered she had inadvertently broken the law when she tried to help her students register to vote:

The teacher who heads up New Smyrna Beach High School’s student government association could face thousands of dollars in fines. Her transgression? Helping students register to vote.

Prepping 17-year-olds for the privileges and responsibilities of voting in a democracy is nothing new for civics teachers, but when Jill Cicciarelli organized a drive at the start of the school year to get students pre-registered, she ran afoul of Florida’s new and controversial election law.

Among other things, the new rules require that third parties who sign up new voters register with the state and that they submit applications within 48 hours. The law also reduces the time for early voting from 14 days to eight and requires voters who want to give a new address at the polls to use a provisional ballot.

Cicciarelli was motivated to register students because volunteers helped her first register when she was a student at Florida State University. League of Women Voters volunteers helped her “navigate a process that seemed a little intimidating to a teenager who’d never voted.” Ironically, fear of violating the state’s new rules have prompted the League of Women Voters to suspend their registration efforts in Florida.

“I just want them to be participating in our democracy,” Ciccarelli says of her students. “The more participation we have, the stronger our democracy will be.”

One of those students, 17-year-old student government association co-president Shannon Miller, was grateful she had the chance to register at school. But she worries her peers won’t participate if there are too many obstacles. “It may discourage some students (from registering) if it’s more difficult,” she said.