text:
Don't Blame "Corporate Personhood"
American politics is in trouble. A tsunami of unaccountable, untraceable political money is overwhelming the Republican race for the presidential nomination and threatens to do the same to the fall election. For many people, especially progressives, the culprit is easy to name: the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which swept away any limits on election-advocacy ads by corporations, unions, and "independent" political-action committees (PACs) and issue groups. Many progressives believe that Citizens United "made corporations people" and that a constitutional amendment restricting "corporate personhood" will cure this political ill.
Citizens United is a bad decision. This obvious fact may even be dawning on the Court's conservative majority, which is taking a surprisingly leisurely look at American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, in which the Montana Supreme Court directly challenged Citizens United, in essence telling the justices that they didn't understand the first thing about politics. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, dissenters in Citizens United, have publicly stated that American Tradition may offer an opening to limit or even overturn the malign precedent.
But the problem didn't start with Citizens United and can't be fixed by a corporate-personhood amendment. The threat to American self-government runs far deeper. It started nearly 40 years ago, when the Court first became involved in campaign-finance cases. Four decades of decisions have allowed the rich and powerful to transform free speech—our most important tool of bottom-up self-government—into a means of top-down social control.
To understand what's wrong with free-speech doctrine in the 21st century, consider a question put from the bench by Chief Justice John Roberts during oral argument in a case called Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.
In 1998, the voters of Arizona created a voluntary public-financing system, in which a candidate who agreed not to solicit or spend private funds would receive state funding. Public financing is a great idea; it frees candidates from the need to truckle to wealthy donors. Under current constitutional doctrine, though, it can't be made mandatory. Candidates who refuse to take part in the system can often raise much more (from their own funds or from contributions) than the amount allotted to their challengers by the state. To address this concern, the act provided that if a privately financed candidate spent more than a publicly financed candidate's allotted funding, the publicly financed candidate would receive additional money to allow a competitive election. The law didn't match the private campaign dollar for dollar, but it did give the publicly financed candidate a second infusion of cash.
Right-wing political groups challenged the additional-funding provision. They argued that it infringed the free-speech rights of privately financed candidates, because those candidates might hesitate to spend campaign funds if doing so would trigger additional funding for their opponents.
When the case came before the Court, Roberts asked the state of Arizona's lawyer, "I checked the Citizens' Clean Elections Commission website this morning, and it says that this act was passed to, quote, 'level the playing field' when it comes to running for office. Why isn't that clear evidence that it's unconstitutional?"
Appellate judges are not supposed to go Googling around on argument day in search of new evidence to spring on counsel during oral argument. They are supposed to decide cases only on the record before the Court. Early in 2012, when a government lawyer defending environmental regulations seemed to be straying from the printed record of evidence, Roberts dressed him down. "If they weren't in the record, I don't want to hear about them. You appreciate that rule, that we don't consider things that aren't in the record," he scolded. That rule apparently doesn't apply to the chief justice.
Roberts's question showed that he had detected a major First Amendment heresy. Any hint of civic equality, any reference to a "level playing field," was to him proof that Arizona's election scheme was invalid. Indeed, the Court invalidated the Arizona law three months later. The Republican right, supported by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, has decided that freedom of speech is incompatible with equal citizenship. That misunderstanding has done severe damage to our democracy and now threatens to destroy it.
That misunderstanding also explains Citizens United, in which the Court held that corporations must be allowed to fund independent advertising advocating the election or defeat of political candidates. The ban on independent expenditures (which applied only during a time period just before elections) was designed to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Lawmakers reasoned that allowing corporations to jump into a campaign might give them unfair sway over successful office seekers; even if it did not, it would create the impression that wealthy people and organizations can buy influence with the candidates they support.
The Court, however, laughed off this claim. "Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." Exactly why this is true the Court did not bother to explain.
What Citizens United means is that corporations and wealthy donors, with their enormous financial resources, can flood the airwaves with ads from deceptively titled issue groups with names like "Americans for Prosperity" and "American Future Fund." They did this in the 2010 midterms and have now transformed the Republican primaries of 2012, in which secretive "super PACs," allied with the different rivals for the nomination, have poured millions into small-state contests to fund scabrous attack ads. In February 2012, the Obama campaign bowed to the inevitable and began urging wealthy donors to support its own super PAC, Priorities USA Action. As this suggests, the independence of these groups is a joke; they have become arms of the campaigns, governed by no limits on contributions or contributors. The money race is bound to assume a new and monstrous level as the 2012 campaign cycle moves forward.
Conservative activists are ready with cases designed to push the Citizens United principle further. In United States v. Danielczyk, District Judge James C. Cacheris dismissed criminal charges against executives accused of diverting corporate funds to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Even the current federal ban of direct contributions from corporate treasuries—unchanged by Citizens United—violates the First Amendment, he said. "Taken seriously, Citizens United requires that corporations and individuals be afforded equal rights to political speech, unqualified," he wrote. "Thus, following Citizens United, individuals and corporations must have equal rights to engage in both independent expenditures and direct contributions. They must have the same rights to both the 'apple' and the 'orange.'"
Judge Cacheris's opinion contradicted what the Supreme Court had said in Citizens United, but it's likely that the Court will seriously consider his argument when the issue comes before it. Meanwhile, right-wing lawyers are conducting a guerrilla campaign in the lower courts against requirements that donors disclose their identities. This too, the right argues, violates "freedom of speech." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have hinted that they agree with this position.
The right embraced Citizens United as the most important free-speech victory since the repeal of the Sedition Act. "Any proponent of free speech should applaud this decision," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "Citizens United is and will be a First Amendment triumph of enduring significance." Even Newt Gingrich, who often speaks of federal courts as an enemy to be defied or even dissolved, praised the Supreme Court for "its principled defense of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, for example in the recent case of Citizens United."
Progressives and moderates have reacted differently. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama scolded the justices seated in front of him, saying, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections."
Much progressive outrage focuses on the inclusion of corporations in the First Amendment. The idea has grown up that the case created corporate personhood. This is because the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech applies to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the states to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Jeffrey D. Clements, general counsel and co-founder of Free Speech for People, recently published an anti–Citizens United book with the title Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About It. Demonstrators outside the Supreme Court on the second anniversary of Citizens United performed a skit in which actors wore large boxes with corporate logos. While a chorus belted out Sesame Street's song about "a person in your neighborhood," the boxes tried to blend in with a crowd of ordinary workers and consumers. "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one" is the legend on one popular anti–Citizens United social-media post.
But the attack on "corporate personhood" reflects both a misconception of Citizens United and the problem with current First Amendment law. The problem is not that corporations are "persons" under the law. Corporations have always been "persons"—that is and always has been, in fact, the definition of a corporation, a "fictive person" able to own property and enter into legal agreements. Also, the problem is not the idea that corporate "persons" have free-speech rights. Of course they do. The idea that corporations have some of the free-speech rights that people have is essential to important Court decisions like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), which removed the threat of government censorship from American media. Nor is the problem the idea that "money is speech"; the First Amendment would be toothless if government could prohibit anyone from paying to publish thoughts or being paid to publish them.
The profound problem with our current law is the idea that free speech has neither nuanced variations nor underlying values. The Court in Citizens United claimed that corporations either must have no free-speech rights or must have precisely the same free-speech rights as natural persons do. There is a middle position. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens explained it to TV host Stephen Colbert in January. "For some purposes, corporations are persons," he said. "As with natural persons as well as corporate persons, some have different rights than others do. The same rights don't apply to everyone in every possible situation."
Stevens is correct—as every member of this Supreme Court recognizes. In a 2011 case, the AT&T Corporation tried to bar release of some corporate documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The documents had been turned over to the Federal Communications Commission as part of an investigation; once that was concluded, the statute required disclosure to the public. But the corporations invoked an exception in the statute for materials that would be "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, ridiculed the claim: "We reject the argument that because 'person' is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase 'personal privacy' in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally."
As Roberts recognized, our laws treat many kinds of "persons" differently for various purposes—citizens are treated differently from noncitizens, minors differently from adults, members of professions differently from nonmembers. Each group's rights—even important rights like free speech—are treated differently for some purposes. Union officials, for instance, are closely restricted in how they use union funds for political purposes. Lawyer advertising can be restricted in certain contexts to prevent coercion of potential clients. Tax-exempt organizations must agree not to endorse candidates in exchange for their special status. Even this Supreme Court in January 2012 affirmed a lower-court decision that noncitizens residing lawfully in the U.S.—who do have most other First Amendment rights—cannot engage in "electioneering" in U.S. elections.
There is no reason the First Amendment cannot make a similar distinction in assessing the free-speech rights of corporations. That a corporation is a "person" does not mean that its participation in politics has to be free of regulation. The right to form corporations puts a powerful tool in private hands. A corporation can amass huge sums of cash; its management, in most views of the law, must use that money for one purpose only—to increase profits for shareholders. Fictive person or not, a corporation need never "die." Corporations are meant to be more resilient and more dynamic than any individual can be. The law of free speech, to be anything other than a mockery of democracy, needs to take that imbalance of power into consideration.
But the imbalance of power doesn't stem from the idea of corporate personhood. Reversing corporate personhood won't win the battle against toxic campaign funding. For one thing, corporations aren't the only "persons" taking advantage of the lifting of restrictions on independent expenditures. Nevada casino magnate Sheldon Adelson stepped in to rescue Newt Gingrich's campaign with $16.5 million of his personal funds. Any campaign-finance reform worth fighting for will need to restrict billionaires as well as billion-dollar corporations.
For another, the Court in Citizens United expressly said that it was not relying on the idea of personhood as the basis for its decision striking down the McCain--Feingold Act's limits on money in electioneering. The Court relied on the nature of the speech itself, not the identity of the speaker. Political speech is the most protected kind of speech under the First Amendment. Thus if by a heroic effort we enacted a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people, a future conservative Court would have no trouble striking down limits on corporate political expenditures anyway. Current First Amendment doctrine—dating back nearly a half-century before Citizens United—would make the opinion easy to write.
The opinion would be easy to write precisely because current doctrine has broken loose from the underlying values of the First Amendment. Remember Chief Justice Roberts's improper question: If a state tries to create a "level playing field," where the voice of the rich doesn't drown out that of ordinary citizens, this attempt is automatically unconstitutional. Over the past generation, conservative majorities on the Court have systematically undermined the idea that the First Amendment relates to democratic self-government and civic equality.
That problem goes back to the Court's first major campaign-finance decision, Buckley v. Valeo, in 1976. Buckley considered the campaign-finance reforms that Congress passed after the Watergate scandal. In 1972, the Committee to Re-Elect the President mobilized corporate donations around Richard Nixon's campaign. As never before, the White House and the government operated to serve powerful corporate interests and extort campaign contributions from them in return. After President Nixon's resignation, the public demanded major reform to the campaign-finance laws, and Congress complied. The new laws limited the amount of money campaigns could raise and spend, restricted individual contributions to political candidates, set up a public-financing system for presidential elections, cut back on so-called independent political expenditures, and limited the amount of personal funds political candidates could spend for their campaigns.
In Buckley, however, the Court held that the First Amendment did not allow Congress to restrict the total amount raised and spent by privately financed campaigns, to limit the expenditures of the so-called independent committees, or to restrict the amount a wealthy individual could spend on his or her own political campaign. Although the Court did permit Congress to limit the amount any individual could give directly to a candidate, the net effect of Buckley was to halt progress on making American politics fairer, more open, and less dominated by wealthy individuals and corporations.
Like John Roberts in our time, the Buckley majority found the idea of civic equality to be heresy. "The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others," the Court's per curiam opinion thundered, "is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."
Really? Wholly foreign?
Wholly … foreign?
Is equality in speech—the right not only to speak but to be heard—really a sinister, un-American notion?
The idea does not stand up to scrutiny.
Imagine a meeting of your county board, with an open comment period for citizens to discuss some pending measure. A local organization—let's call it "Citizens United"—signs up to speak first. Then, when its allotted time is up, the organization's representatives refuse to yield the microphone. Citizens United has more to say, they argue; government cannot "silence" them to allow others to talk. Other citizens are still free: They can shout their comments from the back of the chamber or fold notes into paper airplanes and toss them in the direction of the board members.
Would anyone accept this logic?
Or imagine that Citizens United members come to the meeting with privately purchased bullhorns. After their representative has spoken, they use their bullhorns to drown out other speakers. If the chairman told them to stop, would this be "wholly foreign to the First Amendment"? Wouldn't it be ordinary democratic procedure, designed to make sure that as many points of view as possible are heard?
The private-bullhorn approach is now the dominant view of free speech. The First Amendment exists, in the new logic, to allow those with money to drown out those without. The thrust of much of the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence in recent years—not just in the campaign-finance area—has been to give increased power to the powerful at the expense of the powerless. A 2007 case, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, was an important step on the road to Citizens United. In that opinion, Chief Justice Roberts was self-righteous. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor," he wrote.
Sounds good. But it turns out that the tie goes to the speaker when the speaker is a well-funded organization or institution. Individuals don't fare quite so well. Consider Morse v. Frederick, a case decided the same term, again in an opinion by Roberts. In Morse, an exuberant student stood near his high school as the Olympic Torch went by; when the TV cameras passed over him, he unveiled a banner reading BONG HiTS 4 JESUS. The school principal told him to put the banner away; when he refused, the principal suspended him.
Roberts saw no problem with silencing the witless stoner. He tortured the phrase "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" to conclude that it could mean "bong hits [are a good thing]." TV viewers could conclude that the school somehow agreed with this "advocacy" of pot usage. Tie paid the house on that one.
Consider the 2006 case of Garcetti v. Ceballos. A deputy Los Angeles County prosecutor found serious defects in a police affidavit that led to a search warrant and a prosecution. When he told his superiors of his view that the warrant was invalid, they ignored him. The defense counsel asked him, under oath, about his view of the warrant. When he answered truthfully, his superiors transferred him and denied him a promotion. He sued, alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. The Court rejected his suit. "When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties," the majority wrote, "the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."
House wins again.
Students can be silenced when they say something that can remotely be interpreted as favoring illegal drugs. Contrast this with the right of tobacco corporations to advertise their addictive drug directly to students. In a case called Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, the Court voided a Massachusetts law forbidding tobacco billboards within 1,000 feet of a school. In fact, the Court went further and held that, under the First Amendment, the state could not even require smokeless tobacco and cigar advertisements in stores to be posted a minimum of five feet above the floor, so that toddlers would be protected from colorful cartoons of Joe Camel.
So for all the chest-thumping about free speech, this Court is more and more solicitous of the First Amendment rights of corporations and powerful organizations and contemptuous of the individuals they seek to silence. Citizens United was not a radical departure but another way station in this grim transformation of the First Amendment.
Free speech should be—and in the view of those who wrote the First Amendment, would be—an important means by which Americans govern themselves. Without freedom in what we say and hear, we can't make informed decisions about politics and society. But the far right has distorted it into the primary means by which private forces govern us. The result is a slow subversion of our form of government, from republic to corporate oligarchy.
Citizens United has stirred outrage across the board. In American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, even judges got into the act. Late last year, the Montana Supreme Court considered a challenge to that state's corporate expenditure laws from a well-funded pro-business group that advertised to donors that "if you decide to support this program, no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped make this program possible."
The Montana court held that the Supreme Court in Citizens United had not considered the unique facts of Montana's long tradition of corporate abuse—outright buying not just of legislators and elections but of the offices themselves. In effect, the Montana court defied the Supreme Court's edict that independent election expenditures could not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption:
The State of Montana, or more accurately its voters, clearly had a compelling interest to enact the challenged statute in 1912. At that time the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority, and the real social and political power was wielded by powerful corporate managers to further their own business interests. The voters had more than enough of the corrupt practices and heavy-handed influence asserted by the special interests controlling Montana's political institutions. … The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did. If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy is the State required to throw away its protections because the shadowy backers of [the plaintiffs] seek to promote their interests?
That interest in self-government was strong enough to overcome any test the high court could require, the state judges said. "The Supreme Court [in Citizens United] held that laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest," the state court noted. "Here the government met that burden."
Montana's rebellion may be crushed—American Tradition Partnership has now hired James Bopp, one of the lawyers who pioneered Citizens United, to seek a reversal at the Supreme Court. But even if the Court overturns American Tradition, the prolonged public and legal outcry may make it hesitate before extending Citizens United to gut disclosure and corporate-contribution laws. The Supreme Court likes to feign indifference to public opinion, but sustained opposition by states, other branches of government, and the people can temper the justices' certainty.
With luck, we can blunt any move to broaden Citizens United in the near future; with tenacity, we can reverse this entire line of cases.
At least a dozen proposed amendments to the Constitution have been introduced in Congress. Cities and counties around the country have passed resolutions protesting the decision. Unfortunately, too many of the proposed amendments and protest resolutions focus on the red herring of corporate personhood.
What we need is advocacy and discussion aimed at reviving the idea of speech as an essential component of equality and self-government. Most of the amendments proposed so far don't even mention the idea of "leveling the playing field" or include the most important language—language that would permit the government to institute mandatory public-finance systems with no buyout provision and uniform limitations on independent expenditures by corporations and wealthy individuals.
Amending the Constitution is a difficult and chancy project. We should undertake it—but only around an amendment that addresses civic equality. A drive to amend the Constitution, if fought intelligently, can be an important mobilizing tool. That's a lesson we learn from the Progressive Era, when communities and citizens organized around the ideas of popular democracy and economic justice.
Whether or not an amendment is successful, however, the fight over the ideas behind Citizens United can bear results. For one thing, in the opinion itself, the Court said that governments can require disclosure of contributors' names—both for campaign contributions and for corporate and other entities that make independent expenditures. If Congress, and state and local governments, enacts strict disclosure requirements, that sends a counter-message to the Court and to the far right—that the people will not sit by quietly while moneyed interests conduct a covert buyout of our democratic system.
Even if the Court does not overturn Citizens United, American history shows that justices do take into account the popular opposition their decisions stir. A sustained movement can at a minimum make the majority cautious about extending the precedent and set the stage for a future Court to rethink the First Amendment logic that has led our jurisprudence down this blind alley.
The struggle will likely be long and difficult. But it is worth waging, both because we can win concrete gains and because it offers progressives an opportunity to change the national dialogue about the First Amendment. Citizens must unite indeed—around the idea that one-sided, mercenary discourse is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.
Tue, 2012-04-17 02:55
No one anything will solve all the problems. The author is tilting at straw men when he suggests that corporate personhood is not the problem. We have begun circulating a letter to our state reps and senators calling on Congress to pass an amendment to the US Constitution that clarifies 3 things:
1. Corporations are not people and can not claim the inalienable rights of people. Corporations are a piece of paper called a charter, a commercial convenience with only the limited, very limited characteristic of "juristic personhood."
2. Money is not political speech. Unlimited money to pursue political ends is the ability to monopolize speech. Corporations are entitled to "commercial speech". Political speech is guaranteed to natural persons under the 1st Amendment.
3. Money is a tool that can enhance or extend political speech, and as such may be regulated to prevent a monopolization, an unrepresentative volume of political speech by those with vast wealth. Congress and the states may regulate the use of money in political campaigns for candidates, issues and initiatives and referenda to include public financing of campaigns as they see fit.
Even with the passage of such an amendment, America will still have many, many problems to solve. Much more will need to be done. But this is the "One Ring to rule them all...." This begins to level the political playing field.
The wealth and income chasms will have to be narrowed significantly, something we were on track to do until the early 70s. The environment will need serious remediation and new protections put in place. Ownership of natural resources will have to be better thought out and the benefits of their use shared more equally. Productivity gains will have to be better shared, as they were for the first 25 years following WWII. The concepts of GDP and growth will need to be reconsidered, redefined and new measures created.
Our political system has occupied itself for decades and centuries attending to peripheral issues, avoiding the really difficult issues of basic humanity. Instead of hoping that somehow, some way our schools will magically remake the ethos of selfishness and greed into the brotherhood of man, we will have to tackle these issues or surely face global catastrophe. The times of denial and avoidance are over. We've run out the clock.
"We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them." Instead of sniping at those who are addressing them straight on, the author might do well to just stick to solutions.
Willim Van Alss...
Tue, 2012-04-17 13:15
Mr. Epps most recent column, assailing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, failed to mention that the decision applies equally such that very large, well-financed labor unions, e.g., the U.A.W. and the AFL/CIO may likewise use union treasury funds identically in partisan political promotions, likewise entitled to do so by force of the First Amendment. So, too, zealous organized partisans of the left, like those of the riight, may seek to sway elections by persuading a credulous public to vote and to elect into office such persons these highly influential organizations most favor and from whom they may hope ro most benefit.
Even milllionaires are by no means merely on 'the right," as one quickly thinks at once of George Soros or of Ms. Huffington and her highly partisan (sometimes even, one may say, quite virulent) POST.
I'm personally quite fond of Mr. Epps, but it is nonetheless true that his columns as as predictably skewed in their own way as, say, Bill O'Reilly's nightly telecast is likewise skewed in his own (utterly partisan) way as well ("fair and balanced...baloney'). Fortunately for them (and, indeed, I think fortunately for all the rest of us, too), The First Amendment shelters their wordy efforts to influence us, albeit in opposite directions, nor, I really think, would we want it to be any other way.
Wm. Van Alstyne.
Lee Professor of Constitutional Law
Willim Van Alss...
Tue, 2012-04-17 13:14
Mr. Epps most recent column, assailing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, failed to mention that the decision applies equally such that very large, well-financed labor unions, e.g., the U.A.W. and the AFL/CIO may likewise use union treasury funds identically in partisan political promotions, likewise entitled to do so by force of the First Amendment. So, too, zealous organized partisans of the left, like those of the riight, may seek to sway elections by persuading a credulous public to vote and to elect into office such persons these highly influential organizations most favor and from whom they may hope ro most benefit.
Even milllionaires are by no means merely on 'the right," as one quickly thinks at once of George Soros or of Ms. Huffington and her highly partisan (sometimes even, one may say, quite virulent) POST.
I'm personally quite fond of Mr. Epps, but it is nonetheless true that his columns as as predictably skewed in their own way as, say, Bill O'Reilly's nightly telecast is likewise skewed in his own (utterly partisan) way as well ("fair and balanced...baloney'). Fortunately for them (and, indeed, I think fortunately for all the rest of us, too), The First Amendment shelters their wordy efforts to influence us, albeit in opposite directions, nor, I really think, would we want it to be any other way.
Wm. Van Alstyne.
Lee Professor of Constitutional Law
Craig Clevidence
Tue, 2012-04-17 17:21
It is our contention at Renew Democracy, an advocacy group for a constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform, that the constitutional basis currently for any restrictions to any type of political or campaign spending by any entity group or individual is tenuous at best. The First Amendment is plain. This places our political system in crisis as there is no constitutional basis for regulating what the vast majority of Americans realize needs to be regulated. We feel that just as many of the constitutional restrictions on social behavior ensure the primacy of individual rights to protect from the tyranny of the majority by making the rights of the group subservient to the rights of the individual, it is crucial to ensure the rights of the individual voter have primacy in the political process. For this reason we advocate for a constitutional amendment. The outline of the proposal of the Renew Democracy amendment goes far beyond the bumper sticker solutions of "corporations are not people" and "money is not speech"that many advocacy groups have latched onto as easy fundraisers. Our proposal would be a significant restructuring of the current motivation that present campaign "pay for play" creates in our representatives. We feel that unless our representatives are motivated to represent only the voters, our current broken system cannot be transformed.
The Renew Democracy Amendment
1. The right of the individual qualified citizen voter to participate in and directly elect all candidates by popular vote in all pertinent local, state, and federal elections shall not be questioned and the right to vote is limited to individuals.
2. The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual citizens.
3. Political campaign and political party contributions shall not exceed an amount reasonably affordable by the average American.
4. The rights of all groups, associations and organizations to other political speech may be regulated by Congress but only as to volume and not content and only to protect the right of the individual voter's voice to be heard.
The RDA would
o Render concerns about corporate personage moot as regards to campaign finance as no organization could donate.
o Eliminate political party funding of candidates and campaigns which would dramatically shrink the influence of the political parties on our legislators.
o Eliminate the huge advantage wealthy candidates have in our current political process by allowing only the amount of the individual donation from the candidate.
o End the electoral college which is less democratic than one person one vote and is manipulated currently by state legislatures and could be used to disenfranchise presidential voters. Ending the electoral college is favored by the majority of voters even the majority of Republican voters.
o Create a federal guarantee of the right to vote in all elections for which the voters qualified.
o Create a constitutional framework for legislation regulating soft money and PACs.
o Set a limit for individual donations based on average disposable income. This limit would be the basis for contention however if the limit is set below a threshold that would create a quid pro quo for legislative action then any potential voter could, in the eyes of the legislator, be a maximum contributor if they were sufficiently motivated.
Fri, 2012-04-20 20:02
I question point 3. as not being specific enough. Why? The 14th Amendment is the basis for the concept of corporate personhood. The 14th Amendment, in section 1, clearly states that it applies to US citizens. Therefore, it appears that the SCOTUS has already "ruled" that corporations are "citizens". I would suggest that instead of "individual", you use "human".
Craig Clevidence
Fri, 2012-04-20 23:31
Thank you for your comment Rad. We have purposely not specified an individual limit for several reasons. The first being that we do not pretend to be clever enough to know what that limit should be. For an amendment to have a chance at ratification it must be acceptable to a super majority which means both Democrats and Republicans would need to accept the limit in sufficient numbers. Both parties currently receive the majority of their fundings from individual donations however Democrats receive greater numbers but lesser average donations and Republicans a higher average per donation. To be politically feasible any proposed amendment must allow for the continuation of funding of candidates and parties. There is no doubt that Democrats would prefer to establish a lower limit and Republicans will prefer a higher limit. It is our contention at Renew Democracy that if this is where the battle lies then the war has already been won. As long as a limit is established that is less than the amount that would buy quid pro quo influence then we will have established a small donor democracy, Gov. Rick Perry famously said $5000 wouldn't buy him and he is probably correct. It is our intent that whatever number is established would be indexed to average disposable income.
As for your proposal, it is obvious you have given this a lot of thought. I am curious as to why you would think that; "The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual citizens." is not specific enough to allay your concerns about corporations or other groups influencing our representatives? Our proposal is just that, and will require modification and your concern about needing to include "human" may be valid, but that powerful formulation removes all non-individuals from contributing. Until our representatives are funded solely by the voters we will have representation by special-interest. And Rad, why are you only interested in federal elections?
Tue, 2012-04-24 15:08
This amendment language directly violates the First Amendment and fails to overturn Buckley v. Valeo or abolish corporate personhood. It's also incredibly vague. "Shall not be questioned" is a contradictory phrase to tack onto the end of a declaration that includes the definition "individual qualified citizen voter" ("qualified" usually precludes questioning). "Individuals" is practically meaningless (legally) and "individual citizens" does nothing to repudiate the use of the 14th Amendment for purposes of corporate rights. "Reasonably affordable" is almost impossible to define and would require a layer of bureaucracy that most people would find unnecessary.
And the last sentence really is a direct violation of the First Amendment. There may be some well-thought exceptions but it doesn't work and it's not the way to approach the constitution. There may be many ways to accomplish the same goal but this is decidedly not the way to accomplish this one. If adopted as written, it would create an ambiguity in the Constitution that SCOTUS could drive a truck through. I'm sorry to come on so strong but yours is just one of more than a dozen Amendment versions I've been critiquing over the past several months. And everyone seems to be falling into the same trap.
It is SO much easier to unwind case law than to pack new law on top of old. I don't want this to become a battle of egos but I've been working with another group, Abolish Corporate Personhood Now, and met with David Cobb from Move To Amend, who agreed that our language was "more elegant" than MTA's (hey, it's a start!). Rather than trying to create new law, we simply undo the case law that was created in successive rulings going back to SCC v. SPR (and Buckley), and in so doing, we eliminate outcome-oriented language (like defining a "reasonable amount") and wind up with purely process-oriented language, that is short, sweet and devastatingly effective, like most of the Constitution itself.
Human Rights Amendment
Section one: In all instances wherein the words "person," persons," and "people" appear in this constitution, such words shall be construed to define living human beings only.
Section two: "Money" is defined only as legal tender for the purpose of settling all debts, public and private. Congress shall make no law recognizing the free flow of money as an expression of speech of any kind, or as an expression of any of the rights enumerated in this constitution.
Section three: Congress shall have power to enforce this article and to regulate federal elections by appropriate legislation.
This isn't campaign finance reform, nor should it be. Anything that can be done via legislation should be done via legislation. This doesn't make new law or try to level the playing field. All it does is undermine 120-plus years of case law going back to Santa Clara and nearly forty years going back to Buckley. It wipes out all the protections granted to legal fictions by extending the definition of "person" in the 14th Amendment and all the automatic triggers that grant 1st Amendment protections. And section two completely wipes out the notion of spending money as an expression of protected speech in all venues, everywhere.
I don't expect any language we've seen to date will survive this process intact so this isn't a competition between versions. But I do strongly encourage you and your colleagues to rethink your approach. See this from the perspective of undoing what has been done to what started out as a pretty good system, rather than trying to impose more layers on a structure that has become totally corrupt. What we need now is less, not more. I hope that makes sense. ;-)
Craig Clevidence
Fri, 2012-04-27 02:49
Thank you for your comments. We understand that our proposal would indeed violate the First Amendment. As does any restrictions on campaign donations by any entity currently. That is the whole necessity for the difficult proposition of a constitutional amendment It would change the Constitution to allow what is currently unconstitutional. It is also true that our proposal would not abolish corporate personhood. Perhaps you might reread Dr. Epps article which concisely and at detail outlines why this is an unnecessary step in campaign finance reform. At issue is not the legal status of corporations, but what they and other groups and organizations can do to distort our democratic process. If corporations and all other groups can no longer contribute to campaigns, and we enact a constitutional basis for legislation on the amount of spending of indirect or soft money for all groups, then corporate personhood becomes a moot point in who motivates our political representatives. As Dr. Epps correctly states and as we have said before, the pursuit of corporate personhood is a red herring. I would go further and state that it is counterproductive to pursue a constitutional amendment that so obviously rewards one side of the political spectrum at the detriment of the other. For a constitutional amendment to be feasible it must garner a super majority of public support. An amendment that only restricts corporations cannot garner the adequate support necessary to make it politically feasible. This is an obvious fact that does not require in-depth analysis. The Move to Amend organization does great work in mobilizing and activating people and is to be highly commended. If they want to have any hope of success however and for the benefit of the entire movement, it is past time to take off the political blinders and realize that this is not just about corporations but about all groups and their influence over our representatives. Until we evolve a small donor democracy where our representative's campaigns are paid solely by the voters, we will have dysfunctional government gridlock by special interest and the power of the political parties who benefit from the polarization.
We consider our proposal to be like open source code that America can utilize to program a better, more responsive democracy. We appreciate your comments and we have instituted a change that we considered before and have indeed changed "shall not be questioned" to "shall not be denied or abridged" which does appear currently in the Constitution. It is true that "reasonably affordable"is purposely vague and would be a source of contention. Our reasoning for this was explained previously to rad racer above. There would be no need for any bureaucracy as disposable income is currently calculated and would serve as a peg. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm
There is no vagueness or ambiguity however in section 2 where the RDA states "The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual citizens.". It is this powerful statement that allows the RDA to be broadly acceptable as all Americans can see its fairness. No money from corporations, no money from unions, and no money from the political parties. It is not by accident that our politics are so polarized and that the individual contribution limit for campaign is $2500 and for a political party it is $30,800. I would ask you, are the good people at Move to Amend or Abolish Corporate Personhood Now willing to offend partisan Democrats? We are, and will offend partisan Republicans, staunch union supporters, Corporatists and Strict Constitutionalists as well. http://www.renewdemocracy.org/support/
Wed, 2012-04-18 14:02
This is a bizarrely tendentious analysis that seems designed to defend a far broader conception of corporate personhood than is compatible with democracy or warranted by legal precedent. For one thing, corporations were not "always" persons; this designation is only about a century old. For another, the original rationale for them did not presuppose a competitive market economy or representative republican government; on the contrary, it was to reduce the risk involved in socially beneficial economic activity conducted under monopoly rule. There is no reason whatsoever to grant them *civil* rights and privileges functionally or substantively equivalent to those of "natural" persons subject to the law. Once this is stipulated as the founding principle, we may begin to selectively grant narrowly crafted exceptions to it. By contrast, seeking a compromise with corporate citizenship is democratic suicide.
Thu, 2012-04-19 01:09
All those groups can do is carpet bomb the airwaves with negative ads. It works in some cases, but after the public gets a the full blast this fall we might see more people on both sides of the fence start screaming enough is enough.
Also, those political PACs can't get local grass roots organizations on the move. The only way to counter this is to actually work the sidewalks and get the message out.
Occasional Observer
Thu, 2012-04-19 15:47
Thank you, Professor Epps. We need more cogent analyses along these lines if the amendment movement is ever to advance from bumper stickers and political theater to a serious push for constitutional change. Needed is a broad working grasp – starting within the movement itself – of where and how judge-made law went off the rails. You do not need a J.D. to learn the ropes. I speak with nonattorneys who know them better than lawyers caught up in the amendment movement in its current form, some of whom seem to think the Constitution can be fixed by stickering it.
Sadly, things got off on the wrong foot in the face of objections raised at the outset. These were ignored for the sake of movement-building and in the belief that the public was too complacent to be moved by anything beyond simplistic slogans. As a result, uninformed minds were made up and misplaced ire was wired into the movement. Predictably, many in leadership positions have chosen to double down, further raising the political price of a course correction that should have been unnecessary to begin with.
The antidemocratic forces we are up against must be thrilled. ALEC and other scriveners at their beck and call know what legal words are required to bend the law to their interests. The amendment movement has yet to recruit such a taskforce. The rank and file should wonder at the ability of leaders of the movement make stirring noises without interruption from the powers that be. This suggests they may be in a fool's paradise. The right does not allow so open a field if they feel the least threatened by what's happening on it. By contrast they have no reason to fear Strawberry Fields Forever.
Tensions within the amendment movement have been an undercurrent throughout its course, but they are now surfacing as legislatures in large cities and states have begun adopting amendment resolutions that don't fit what's on the bumper stickers. The staffers know too much to make fools of their employers. As perceptive and even courageous as this article is, as ably as it lays things out, it breaks no new ground.
The test for the movement is whether this tension can be resolved without destroying momentum. I should like to think so, but people will have to start thinking for themselves, dipping into the law, and speaking with others around them.
I would add only that Anthony Kennedy DID give a reason why massive independent expenditures "[would] not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." It just happens to be so bad a reason as to be incredible. It was this:
By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate…. The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.
But in his opinion Kennedy turned a blind eye to coordination, dismissing rampant evidence of it in the 100,000 page record on "soft money" donations that was put before him in McConnell v. FEC and raised again in Citizens United (which thanks to its weird history had no record of its own). He either didn't know coordination when he saw it or chose not to see it. Either way, he figured the public would see independent expenditures as spending for its benefit and not the candidates'. It took the SuperPAC fiasco to bring out the error of his ways, turning Kennedy into Stephen Colbert's straight man, probably without Colbert's exactly realizing it.
Coordination is the mother's milk of political propaganda. It made Frank Luntz rich. Gleichschaltung, the German word for it, was Goebbels's stock in trade, covering a multitude of tactics. The term had currency in British political circles, as Orwell notes. Our political culture is onto it, but only vaguely. (In contrast to Goebbels, Luntz knows not to boast too loudly about it.) But sweep it under the rug, or define it so woodenly as to make it impossible for a judge to see it in action, and the difference between independent spending and contributions evaporates. That is why judges have begun to rule that corporations can give money directly to candidates and why the Supreme Court may yet bless the move.
This is not too hard for a progressive political movement to grasp if we start from the premise that what can be parodied can be seen for what it truly is. But before that can occur, we must decide it is time we learn in earnest how it came to this. Once again, thank you for the contribution.
Craig Clevidence
Fri, 2012-04-20 23:56
As you correctly state, a course correction in the amendment movement should not have been necessary, however at this point, it is required. Our small and unaligned organization has been publicly stating for nearly a year that it is time to leave behind the sound bite slogans and the red herring attack on corporation personhood. The task force that we need to generate is all around us. What is your opinion of our proposal which does certainly deviate from Strawberry Fields Forever? We at Renew Democracy fully expect staunch and vehement opposition from partisans on both sides if the public knowledge of our proposal becomes widespread.
Fri, 2012-04-20 19:55
Prof Van Alstyne's comment conveniently ignores several points. In some (most or all?) states, unions are NOT allowed to do political advocacy work with treasury funds. Even before the obvious stupidity of Justice Kennedy's CU decision, business interests were outspending labor by a minimum of 7:1 in midterms or off-year elections and by over 20:1 in presidential election years. Giving labor another 50 cents to spend does nothing to level the playing field while, with the same illogical and sloppy pen, giving businesses another $5.00 or more.
I would also add that you completely failed to deal with any of the real issues in campaign finance reform.
Sorry, Prof., your ideological bias is screaming to high heaven, and the obviousness and lameness of that bias does not reflect well on your educational credentials.
Fri, 2012-04-20 20:33
The issue of a constitutional amendment must deal with many questions. What must be in the amendment vs. what can be left to legislatures to correct the situation? How specific should an amendment be considering that specificity breads disingenuous attack from opponents? What should it attempt to correct? What is the scope of the problem? etc.
Here are several issues I see that can and should be addressed. I've also added some possible phrases to achieve the remedy. Alternatives are welcome.
1. How do we keep foreign and domestic concentrated wealth from buying elections?
No non-citizen human being, no domestic or foreign corporation or business, limited liability organization, professional, educational or service entity nor any combination thereof shall be permitted to contribute money or its equivalent, directly or indirectly, to 1. any candidate for federal office, 2. any individual undertaking an exploratory effort to run for federal office, 3. any Constitutional Convention delegates or staff or to any campaign for or against ratification of Constitutional Amendments, 4. any initiative, referendum or recall campaign, or 5. any political party or group which nominates candidates for federal office.
2. How do we level the playing field without disfranchising anyone?
Corporate shareholders and association members who are US citizens, via specifically and separately authorized contributions, may contribute a maximum of $X per election cycle to an authorized, segregated political action fund created by the corporation or association. Those set-aside funds may be disbursed on behalf of shareholders and members only by designated officers and must be disclosed within 24 house of disbursal to shareholders and/or members in a form approved by the shareholders and/or members and reported to regulatory authorities and the media (broadcast, cable, printed, internet, etc.) within the body of any advertisement.
3. How do we deny corporations, etc. inalienable human rights?
Not withstanding any other provision of law or court interpretation, foreign and domestic corporations, limited liability organizations and/or any business, professional, educational or service entities or associations are neither persons nor citizens within the meaning of the US Constitution and its Amendments. Furthermore, money is neither the equivalent of nor surrogate for political speech. Any reference to persons in the US Constitution and its Amendments means living, breathing human beings.
4. How do we make it clear that corporations can still operate?
Nothing in the above in any way abolishes the "juristic" personhood of corporate entities which enables them to enter into and demand enforcement of contracts; to buy, own and sell property; and to sue, and to be sued by, living, breathing human beings, regulatory agencies and other "juristic" persons. Juristic persons have no constitutionally acknowledged rights.
5. How do we make it clear that corporations, etc. engage in commercial speech?
Any and all organizations or entities listed in 3, above, are entitled to engage only in commercial speech which may be regulated by federal, state and/or local statutes or agency rules, provided they apply nondiscriminatorily.
6. How do we control the expenditure and cost of campaigns?
Only United States citizens may contribute, and no more than $X or its equivalent (adjusted for inflation every 5 years), to a federal candidate and political party during any election cycle or to any other federal campaign. Congress, state and local governments may enact legislation to create public financing of any elections and to require the "press" to equally provide reasonable amounts of free and/or reduced cost advertising to candidates for federal, state or local office and campaigns for federal, state or local initiatives, referendums or issues to include ratification and drafting of amendments. Nothing above shall limit the ability of individuals to volunteer their personal services to any campaign.
7. If we cannot ban independent expenditures, how can we minimize their damage?
Independent expenditures in support of or in opposition to any federal candidate, state or local referendum, initiative or other public issue may be initiated, funded and conducted only by US citizens (registered to vote)(resident) within the jurisdiction, district or state directly affected by the election. Independent expenditures are prohibited from appearing in the "press" more than 90 (60) days in advance of and during the last 30 (15) days prior to any primary, general or special election date and are subject to contribution limits set forth in Sec. 5, above.
8. How to ensure that individuals' privacy rights are not attached to the corporations so that they can claim corporate privacy on behalf of shareholders, members, etc.?
Privacy rights belong only to living, breathing human beings. No foreign or domestic corporations, limited liability organizations and/or any business, professional, educational or service entities or associations have privacy rights on their own behalf. Only the living, breathing human beings connected to those corporations, entities or associations possess individual privacy rights.
9. What responsibilities do corporations have to society?
Corporate charters shall be granted to organizations which promise to meet standards of community benefit and social responsibility in addition to fully and consistently obeying the laws and regulations of the federal, state and local governments where they operate. Any corporation that fails to fulfill its duty to provide community benefits, fails to uphold its responsibilities and disobeys the law shall forfeit its charter.
10. Should corporations be entitled to immortality? Should worker-owned and –managed co-ops and associations or unions be given special treatment?
All charters shall expire X years after being granted or after the date of ratification of this amendment, whichever is later, unless the corporation is reauthorized as a worker-owned and worker-managed co-operative. Worker-owned and –managed co-operatives', membership associations', and unions' corporate charters shall have no expiration date so long as they abide by the duties and responsibilities in 9, above and do not hire a second class of "employees" beyond a reasonable probation period.
11. How do we flesh out the regs. and make it easier for working people to vote?
Congress and state and local authorities shall have the power to pass appropriate legislation to implement the above. Congress shall establish a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for federal office and any other federal campaigns.
Further thoughts and rationales
Many of the proposed amendments are unbelievably vague and give Congress the right to pass legislation to do the above. Considering that concentrated wealth has the time and money to buy the services of cunning and devious legal minds to circumvent the intent of a vague amendment, I believe being fairly precise and comprehensive will be necessary.
Giving Congress or state legislatures the power to do something is not the same as getting something useful done. 50+ versions of election reform is a recipe for catastrophe as has been the hands off approach to corporate charter granting. The only reason that a few states are home to most corporations is the lax nature of their laws. There is no reason to believe that Congress, in passing from control by one party to another, would not likewise play games with the core legislation.
My concerns about the above are two: How to distinguish political parties and their legitimate activities supporting their candidates from other corporate forms and how to make it clear that the "press" is not constrained in the same ways as are other corporations?
Let the gnashing of teeth, pulling out of hair and screaming and name calling begin.
Tue, 2012-04-24 15:22
Human Rights Amendment
Section one: In all instances wherein the words "person," persons," and "people" appear in this constitution, such words shall be construed to define living human beings only.
Section two: "Money" is defined only as legal tender for the purpose of settling all debts, public and private. Congress shall make no law recognizing the free flow of money as an expression of speech of any kind, or as an expression of any of the rights enumerated in this constitution.
Section three: Congress shall have power to enforce this article and to regulate federal elections by appropriate legislation.
Thu, 2012-04-26 13:21
Fri, 2012-04-27 12:52
I read the "Money Changes Everything" article in the magazine (to which I subscribe.) Can you provide any link to or text of recommended model (s) of appropriate models to limit corporate speech rights w/o abolishing their personhood. Thank you. firstname.lastname@example.com
Sat, 2012-08-11 18:52
The Court reasoned that money is speech. The problem with that, is that speech is evenly distributed among the voters, but money is not. If Citizens United was what the framers wanted, they would have given the vote to only the aristocracy and skipped the sham of citizens voting all together. Instead, they envisioned broad voting rights specifically to diminish the power of the aristocracy. They gave us free speech specifically to prevent the powerful from stifling dissent.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
We're sorry, this frame is currently sold out.
(No reviews)
- Gender:
- Unisex
- Material:
- Metal
- Color:
- Matte Dark Brown
- Spring Hinges:
- No
- Progressive Eligible:
- Yes
- Lens Width:
- Lens Height:
- Bridge Width:
- Arm Length:
- Frame width:
- 54 mm
- 33 mm
- 17 mm
- 137 mm
- 136 mm
Size MatchHow will I know if these frames fit?
Product DescriptionCrocs CF308 40BN Matte Dark Brown eyeglasses keep you looking and feeling great. This frame pairs pure style with uncompromising comfort with its warm matte brown finish and comfortable brown rubber tips. A vibrant burst of orange completes the interior of the flexible temples, providing the energetic vibe that is well known from the Crocs™ brand.
About the BrandCrocs™ has sold over 200 million pairs of shoes worldwide since 2002 and donated over 3,000,000 pairs via their Crocs Cares™ program. Now they bring their innovative technologies and penchant for ultimate comfort and maximum durability to the eyewear scene with a collection of high quality frames in fun, vibrant styles that not only look great, but will last you through any adventure.
Rates estimated for shipping to: United States
- Ground Shipping$9.95
If you're not completely happy with your item, return it to us for FREE!
Within 366 day of purchase, you may return your order in its original condition. See Return Policy.
Within 366 day of purchase, you may return your order in its original condition. See Return Policy.
Get FREE shipping on orders over $99. Use Coupon Code: FREESHIP at checkout. Cannot be combined with other offers.
Site operated by Coastal Contacts Inc .
COPYRIGHT @ 2015 Coastal Contacts Inc. All rights reserved

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Roni Caryn Rabin
Recent and archived news articles by Roni Caryn Rabin of The New York Times.
Selected Articles By Roni Caryn Rabin
Respecting Muslim Patients' Needs
A new study examines how doctors and nurses can help Muslim patients when the traditional health care system cannot accommodate their traditions.November 1, 2010 healthNews
Long-Term Data on Complications Adds to Criticism of Essure Contraceptive Implant
Thousands of women who claim they were seriously injured by the implant Essure are urging the Food and Drug Administration to take the device off the market.
May 4, 2015, Monday
Circumcision Guidelines Target Teenagers
Doctors should start telling sexually active teenage boys who aren't circumcised that the surgery can reduce their risk of contracting H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted infections from female partners, federal health officials propose.
December 2, 2014, Tuesday
F.D.A. Approves Hysingla, a Powerful Painkiller
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved a long-acting opioid painkiller that contains pure hydrocodone, which some addiction experts fear will be abused.
November 21, 2014, Friday
Ebola Guidelines for Doctors' Offices Are Called Vague and Vary by Region
Often local officials and medical associations are left to develop their own policies on how doctors' offices, walk-in clinics and blood-testing centers should handle possible Ebola cases.
October 23, 2014, Thursday
MORE ON: Ebola Virus , Doctors , Blood , Tests (Medical) , Protective Clothing , Texas , Ohio , New York City , Katz, Matthew , Varma, Jay K
Easing the Pain of Sickle Cell Disease
Sickle cell disease, a debilitating and sometimes life-threatening blood disorder, is relatively rare, so doctors may not know how to treat it.
October 20, 2014, Monday
MORE ON: Africa , Anemia , Children and Childhood , Clinical Trials , Kidneys , Transfusions
My Father's A.L.S.
My mother and I were out running errands one afternoon when she pulled the car over and told me the truth. It sounded like something from a horror movie.
September 25, 2014, Thursday
MORE ON: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Health Researchers Will Get $10.1 Million to Counter Gender Bias in Studies
Grants will be used to include more human participants — generally women — in clinical trials and to ensure that laboratory animals, even cell lines, are representative of both genders.
September 23, 2014, Tuesday
Lasker Winner Calls for More Genetic Testing for Cancer
A geneticist wins a prestigious Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation award and uses the spotlight to call for much wider genetic screening for breast and ovarian cancer.
September 9, 2014, Tuesday
Study of Jewish Women Shows Link to Cancer Without Family History
Women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent who tested positive for cancer-causing genetic mutations have high rates of breast and ovarian cancer even without a family history of the disease, researchers said.
September 5, 2014, Friday
Are Antidepressants Safe During Pregnancy?
Researchers are finding more evidence that women who take S.S.R.I. depressants like Prozac and Zoloft increase the likelihood of a variety of health problems in their newborns.
September 1, 2014, Monday
Rss Feeds On Roni Caryn Rabin
Subscribe to an RSS feed on this topic. What is RSS?


text:
Get Ready for Election Day 2012: Find Out How The Obamas and The Romneys Wed!
We've caught election fever at The Knot so we couldn't resist sharing our favorite facts and photos of the candidates' weddings. While Barack and Mitt might differ on topics like the economy, social issues, and foreign policy, I think one thing we can all agree on is that they looked fabulous on their wedding day!... read more


text:
Wednesday, April 9 @ 10:30am
Join Miss Kristine and Miss Alex every Wednesday for quality time with your baby or toddler. Enjoy songs, stories, fingerplays, games, and so much more during this lapsit program. Duffy the Storytime Bear is looking forward to meeting you under the parachute. Older siblings are welcome to stick around for Family Storytime right after.
We now know our numbers 1-10. Let's learn about numbers in real life!
Wednesday, April 9 @ 11am
Join Miss Kristine and Miss Alex every Wednesday for a fun-filled hour of stories, songs, and crafts. This program is geared toward a wide range of ages, including families with toddlers, preschoolers, and elementary-aged children.
It's a jungle out there! Get ready to roar, squawk, and howl at this wild storytime.
Wednesday, April 9 at 3pm
Join us for our free St. Augustine Travel Club get together. The main focus of the club is to educate, inform, and enjoy armchair travel. Did you know Tahiti covers over two million square miles of the South Pacific Ocean and is comprised of 118 islands spread over five great archipelagos? Come learn more about these beautiful South Seas Isles. Call 797-3736 for additional information.


text:
Scott Stringer
Richard Perry/The New York Times
News about Scott Stringer, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times.
Chronology of Coverage
Jul. 2, 2015
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer finds widespread misuse by several city agencies of arcane payment method that may have circumvented competitive bidding process on some expenditures. MORE
Jun. 16, 2015
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer says his office plans to independently review addresses of boarding houses where city agencies send addicts and people with nowhere else to go as part of effort to weed out unscrupulous operators; officials say city's push to reduce number of homeless shelters has resulted in hundreds of so-called three-quarter homes. MORE
May. 11, 2015
Report by Comptroller Scott M Stringer warns that New York City's public hospital system will face deficit of more than $1 billion by 2017 should federal cuts take place as scheduled; government plans to cut subsidies to public hospitals based on theory that millions of people who are newly insured under Affordable Care Act will exert less pressure on system. MORE
Apr. 20, 2015
Audit by New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer reveals faulty practices by Animal Care and Control of New York, nonprofit group that cares for city's stray and unwanted animals; finds that group administered unsafe drugs and stored vaccines improperly. MORE
Apr. 14, 2015
Editorial suggests public should be outraged by revelation from New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer that city's five public-employee pension funds have made net gain of zero due to exorbitant money management fees; expresses disbelief that series of comptrollers and fund managers, including Stringer himself, never sought to address the high fees, and urges Stringer to name names and identify firms that charged such rates. MORE
Apr. 9, 2015
Analysis by New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer finds that city's five pension funds have received virtually nothing in return after paying some $2.5 billion in fees to money managers; remains unclear what changes will be instituted in wake of findings. MORE
Jan. 14, 2015
Editorial welcomes announcement by New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer that city will remit total of $17 million to Robert Hill, Alvena Jennette and Darryl Austin, who were wrongly convicted of murders due to corrupt tactics of homicide detective Louis Scarcella; concedes that payout is less than men may have gotten through civil lawsuit, but that at least it is immediate and certain; calls on every state to set up some sort of monetary compensation for those who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned. MORE
Jan. 12, 2015
New York City comptroller Scott M Stringer settles claims based on wrongful murder convictions of Robert Hill, Alvena Jennette and Darryl Austin, and agrees to pay them $17 million; their convictions were vacated in May 2014; payout is part of strategy to resolve potential lawsuits before they reach court. MORE
Dec. 18, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer releases audit showing city's Housing Authority, which faces large budget deficit and unfunded capital needs of about $18 billion, missed opportunities to obtain nearly $700 million in federal funding; Stringer accuses the public housing agency of bureaucratic incompetence. MORE
Dec. 17, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer is trying to negotiate settlement of $75 million civil rights claim brought by family of Eric Garner, who died after being put into police chokehold; move is part of Stringer's strategy to settle major civil rights claims before lawsuits are formally filed, in effort to avoid lengthy trial, save taxpayer dollars and bring closure to claimants and their families. MORE
Dec. 4, 2014
Tensions between New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and city's comptroller Scott M Stringer heighten over proposal to replace city's public pay phones with Wi-Fi hot spots; Stringer asserts that de Blasio's plan will perpetuate digital class divide by providing faster service in more affluent neighborhoods; remarks are seen as stinging criticism for an administration that prides itself on being sensitive to inequality. MORE
Nov. 27, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer says city has missed out on as much as $120 million since being suspended from E-rate federal technology program in 2011 due to investigation into Education Department, and that figure could reach $300 million by 2018; inquiry was prompted by allegations that former city technology consultant Willard Lanham was stealing money from department. MORE
Nov. 6, 2014
Band of institutional shareholders led by New York City comptroller Scott M Stringer is mounting first push ever at 75 American companies to allow investors to hire and fire directors directly; plan is intended to bring greater accountability to corporate boardrooms. MORE
Oct. 31, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer announces plan to audit financial and operating practices of Success Academy, as well as three other charter schools; advocacy organization New York City Charter School Center immediately challenges Stringer's plan, saying his authority to audit charter schools is limited to finances. MORE
Oct. 17, 2014
New York City comptroller Scott Stringer reports that city spent record $1.1 billion to run jails in 2014 fiscal year, nearly twice amount spent per inmate in other large cities; Correction Department is under pressure to rein in violence following series of reports about harsh jail conditions, but falling inmate population and higher ratio of guards to prisoners have produced counterintuitive result, with assaults by guards and inmate violence on rise. MORE
Oct. 2, 2014
Comptroller Scott M Stringer unveils letter-grading system that rates New York City agencies in terms of their spending on goods and services provided by businesses owned by women and minorities; inaugural report gives city overall grade of D, reflecting fact that only 3.9 percent of city's procurement budget went to such businesses. MORE
Sep. 13, 2014
Board of trustees at Queens Public Library puts embattled president Thomas W Galante on leave as officials continue probe into spending; also moves to give city comptroller Scott M Stringer full access to library's financial records. MORE
Aug. 30, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer criticizes city's rollout of prekindergarten expansion, saying that hundreds of contracts with organizations offering prekindergarten had not been delivered to him for vetting; office of Mayor Bill de Blasio pushes with unusually strong response, dismissing Stringer's concerns; clash hints that this may be start of new political rivalry. MORE
Aug. 28, 2014
Office of New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer says Education Department, with one week before school begins, has delivered for review only 141 of more than 500 contracts with organizations that will be teaching prekindergarten classes; department has made repeated requests for documents. MORE
Aug. 20, 2014
Report from New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer says personal-injury claims against the Correction Dept have more than doubled from 2009 to 2014; links the 114 percent increase to inmates with mental health issues and the use of solitary confinement, especially at Rikers Island Prison Complex; adds to growing body of evidence of disturbing practices at Rikers, and is part of program called ClaimStat, which is aimed at studying claims against city in effort to curb future lawsuits and settlements. MORE
Aug. 20, 2014
Editorial welcomes new initiative by New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer known as ClaimStat, which will use copious amounts of data about lawsuits and claims filed each year against city to save money and solve problems; expresses hope that initiative will operate in similar way to CompStat, which has helped New York Police Department reduce crime. MORE
Jul. 25, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer releases stinging audit of New York City Housing Authority, charging that it has repeatedly broken agreement to hire certain percentage of public housing residents or low-income New Yorkers in awarding building contracts. MORE
Jul. 16, 2014
Growing national movement fueled by women's and labor groups seeks to curb workplace scheduling practices that impose part-time work or unpredictable schedules on employees, wreaking havoc with responsibilities like child and elder care; Vermont and San Francisco have adopted laws giving workers right to request flexible or predictable schedules, and New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer is pressing City Council to take up such legislation. MORE
May. 15, 2014
High-stakes tug of war is unfolding between New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Comptroller Scott M Stringer over settlement with city's teachers' union; de Blasio says his administration will make $725 million adjustment to its settlement with union after Stringer spotted accounting issue. MORE
May. 13, 2014
De Blasio administration bows to pressure from New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer, announcing that it is shifting $725 million in retroactive pay for teachers it had sought to spread over four years into current fiscal year's budget; Stringer and his aides argued that the budget plan did not comply with generally accepted accounting principles that the city is legally bound to follow. MORE
Apr. 7, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer plans to release a report showing that many public schools in the city do not offer any kind of arts education, and that the lack of arts instruction disproportionately affects low-income neighborhoods; shortage is acute in low-income areas like the South Bronx and central Brooklyn, where more than 42 percent of the schools do not have state-certified arts teachers. MORE
Apr. 3, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer is issuing directive that he says will standardize how information technology contracts are handled across all city agencies; city has been burned for years by boondoggles, fraud and delays in its biggest computerization contracts, and new plan will put in place measures that could improve oversight and keep projects from spiraling out of control. MORE
Feb. 27, 2014
City Comptroller Scott M Stringer, in report, points to what he describes as curiosities in how four milk distributors won and then delivered on $134 million in school contracts in 2008; report notes no proof that companies colluded, but at news conference Stringer lets it be known he suspects the four companies made unseemly business arrangement. MORE
Feb. 22, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer defends his decision to pay $6.4 million to David Ranta, man imprisoned for 23 years after being wrongfully convicted of murder, without involving city's Law Dept; city officials and lawyers say decision has no precedent in recent history, and could have ramifications for similar cases. MORE
Feb. 10, 2014
Scott M. Stringer will urge Apple investors to vote against a proposal for a stock buyback worth $50 billion. MORE
Jan. 30, 2014
New York City Comptroller Scott M Stringer proposes changes to city's pension system that would require pension managers to regularly report personal investment transactions, and ban placement agents for investment managers from doing business with $150 billion retirement system. MORE
Nov. 7, 2013
News analysis examines direction New York City will now take, given that Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio is a liberal Democrat, as are newly elected public advocate Letitia James and City Comptroller Scott M Stringer. MORE
Oct. 31, 2013
Editorial endorses Scott Stringer for New York City Comptroller; asserts that Stringer is better qualified than his Republican opponent John Burnett and holds that Stringer would bring the right mix of experience, doggedness, political skills and integrity to the job. MORE
Oct. 9, 2013
Scott M Stringer, Democratic candidate for New York City comptroller, engages in first general election debate with Republican rival John Burnett; Burnett lashes out at Stringer for not attending meetings of a pension board on which he sits and accuses him of not understanding financial terms; Stringer questions Burnett about continuing government shutdown and looming debt crisis. MORE
Oct. 6, 2013
Audrey Gelman, political ingenue who worked on Scott Stringer's successful campaign for New York City comptroller, is also known for her fashion sense and provocative older boyfriend, photographer Terry Richardson. MORE
Sep. 11, 2013
Scott M Stringer defeats Eliot Spitzer in Democratic primary for New York City comptroller, ruining Spitzer's bid for political redemption. MORE
Sep. 10, 2013
Scott M Stringer and Eliot Spitzer head into the final hours of their too-close-to-call Democratic primary for New York City comptroller; political consultants say contest will be between Stringer's larger field operation and Spitzer's money and greater name recognition. MORE
Sep. 10, 2013
Editorial endorses candidates in New York City primary elections; backs Democrat Christine Quinn and Republican Joseph Lhota for mayor, Daniel Squadron for public advocate, Scott Stringer for comptroller, Gale Brewer for Manhattan borough president and Melinda Katz in Queens; backs city council candidates Corey Johnson, Ben Kallos, Mel Wymore, Antonio Reynoso, Ede Fox and Carlos Menchaca. MORE
Sep. 5, 2013
Eliot Spitzer and Scott M Stringer, Democratic candidates for New York City comptroller, face off at tense forum in Manhattan organized by Council of Urban Professionals; Quinnipiac University poll shows candidates are in statistical dead heat. MORE
Aug. 30, 2013
Trailside blog; Scott M Stringer and Eliot Spitzer are vying for women's votes as polls show widely different results in race for New York City comptroller; women are a crucial battleground, not only because Stringer sees Spitzer's history of patronizing prostitutes as vulnerability, but also because women are expected to make up about 60 percent of voters in Sept 10 Democratic primary. MORE
Aug. 24, 2013
Trailside blog; Scott M Stringer, Democrat who is Manhattan borough president and a candidate for city comptroller, took over management of a Manhattan bar called Simon Sez in 1990, but it closed after a dispute with landlord George H Beane, who says he remains aggrieved at the actions of Stringer and his partners. MORE
Aug. 23, 2013
Scott M Stringer and Eliot Spitzer, Democratic candidates for New York City comptroller, have their final televised debate; among the usual sharp exchanges are moments of levity and even a little singing. MORE
Aug. 22, 2013
Trailside blog; Scott M Stringer is stepping up efforts to reach black voters as polls show Eliot Spitzer leading in Democratic primary for New York City comptroller, buoyed by strong support among African-Americans. MORE
Aug. 20, 2013
Trailside blog; former Gov David A Paterson finds himself in difficult position of having endorsed Scott M Stringer in New York City's race for comptroller prior to the entry of Eliot Spitzer into the race; Paterson, who served as lieutenant governor under Spitzer, says he will not switch his endorsement but does comment that Spitzer would do a 'fantastic job' as comptroller. MORE
Aug. 19, 2013
New York Times, Daily News and New York Post endorse Manhattan Borough President Scott M Stringer for city comptroller; endorsement is potential boost for Stringer, who is trailing Eliot Spitzer by as much as 19 points in recent polls. MORE
Aug. 19, 2013
Scott M Stringer, Manhattan borough president and candidate for city comptroller, has repeatedly accused Democratic primary opponent Elliot Spitzer of having engaged in money laundering by way he transferred money to Emperor's Club VIP escort services while he was governor; Spitzer says Stringer is misstating facts. MORE
Aug. 17, 2013
Editorial endorses Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer for New York City comptroller. MORE
Aug. 16, 2013
Scott M Stringer, Manhattan borough president and candidate for city comptroller, once ran Uptown Local, a bar on the Upper West Side that closed after one year because of financial troubles; concedes that his youthful ambitions collided with a total lack of experience. MORE
Aug. 15, 2013
Trailside blog; Quinnipiac University poll shows that strong support among black voters is giving Eliot Spitzer significant edge over his opponent Scott M Stringer in New York City comptroller's race, weeks before Democratic primary. MORE
Aug. 13, 2013
Scott M Stringer, typically mild-mannered Manhattan borough president, levels a series of attacks that seem to catch former Gov Eliot Spitzer, off guard in blistering hour-long debate. MORE
There are no additional abstracts to display.
New York Comptroller Faults Payment System in 39 City Agencies
Scott M. Stringer, New York City's comptroller, said misuse of an arcane system allowed agencies to circumvent contract regulations and restricted oversight of vendors with integrity and performance issues.
July 2, 2015, Thursday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: New York City , Stringer, Scott M , Government Contracts and Procurement
New York City Public Housing Units Remain Empty Unnecessarily, Audit Finds
A report released by New York City's comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, found that apartments remain vacant unnecessarily, either waiting for repairs for years or staying empty long after renovations.
June 25, 2015, Thursday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: Real Estate and Housing (Residential) , Affordable Housing , Housing Authority (NYC) , Office of the Comptroller (NYC) , Stringer, Scott M , New York City
New York Comptroller, Taking Aim at 'Three-Quarter' Homes, Urges City Agencies to End Referrals
The office of Scott M. Stringer says it wants to independently review addresses of boardinghouses where city agencies send people, and weed out unscrupulous operators.
June 16, 2015, Tuesday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: New York City , Stringer, Scott M , Homeless Persons , Drug Abuse and Traffic , Public and Subsidized Housing , Real Estate and Housing (Residential) , Baumblit, Yury (1950- ) , Office of the Comptroller (NYC)
Morning Agenda: Intel Takeover of Altera Is Expected
Intel Takeover of Altera Is Expected | Humana Said to Consider Sale | Big Payouts in Charter-Time Warner Cable Merger | Vanguard and Fidelity Resist Proxy Access
June 1, 2015, Monday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: Paulson, John A , Stringer, Scott M , Altera Corp , Charter Communications Inc , Citigroup Inc , Fidelity Investments , Goldman Sachs Group Inc , Intel Corporation , Morgan Stanley , Time Warner Cable Inc , Vanguard Group Inc , Banking and Financial Institutions , Computer Chips , Executive Compensation , Hedge Funds , Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures , Shareholder Rights and Activism
Federal Cuts Would Be Major Blow to New York City's Public Hospitals, Comptroller Says
A report by Scott M. Stringer says the 11-hospital system expects to face a deficit of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2017, which will grow in subsequent years.
May 11, 2015, Monday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: New York City , Hospitals , Stringer, Scott M , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) , Health and Hospitals Corp
Animals Put at Risk in New York City's Shelters, Audit Finds
Animal Care and Control of New York, the nonprofit group that cares for the city's stray and unwanted animals, has administered unsafe drugs and stored vaccines improperly, the comptroller said.
April 20, 2015, Monday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: Animal Abuse, Rights and Welfare , New York City , Animal Care and Control of New York City , Stringer, Scott M , Office of the Comptroller (NYC)
New York's Leaky Public Pension Funds
New York City's comptroller, Scott Stringer, will need to come up with better ways to protect taxpayer funds.
April 14, 2015, Tuesday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: Editorials , New York City , Stringer, Scott M , Office of the Comptroller (NYC) , Prices (Fares, Fees and Rates) , Pensions and Retirement Plans
Wall Street Fees Wipe Out $2.5 Billion in New York City Pension Gains
An analysis by Comptroller Scott M. Stringer found that after paying more than $2 billion in fees to money managers, New York City's pension funds have received virtually nothing in return.
April 9, 2015, Thursday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: Pensions and Retirement Plans , New York City , Stringer, Scott M , Government Employees , Banking and Financial Institutions
New York City Comptroller Cites Flaws in Hurricane Sandy Recovery Program
A company hired by the city to help homeowners rebuild had a "financial disincentive" to act more quickly because it had already been paid millions of dollars upfront, an audit found.
April 1, 2015, Wednesday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: Build It Back Program (NYC) , Hurricane Sandy (2012) , New York City , Stringer, Scott M
City Comptroller Reaches Deals With 5 Companies on Giving Shareholders Say on Directors
The agreement comes four months after the city comptroller's office embarked on a campaign to give shareholders the right to hire and fire board members at 75 companies.
March 11, 2015, Wednesday
MORE ON SCOTT M. STRINGER AND: Shareholder Rights and Activism , Office of the Comptroller (NYC) , Whiting Petroleum Corporation , Big Lots Inc , McKesson Corporation , Staples Inc , Abercrombie & Fitch Co , Stringer, Scott M , Boards of Directors
The 109th Mayor of New York
Bill de Blasio claimed his place as mayor on Wednesday. On the steps of City Hall, he was ceremonially sworn in by former President Clinton.
The Other Races
Whom will you be voting for in Tuesday's general elections? Use your address to see local races in New York City.
Scott Stringer Speaks
Scott Stringer spoke after a day of voting on Tuesday.
Eliot Spitzer Concedes Defeat
Eliot Spitzer says he has no regrets about his public service or his campaign to run for New York City comptroller.
Spitzer and Stringer in First Debate
Eliot Spitzer and Scott Stringer, Democrats running for New York City comptroller, faced off Friday in a debate to be broadcast this weekend. The Times's Kate Taylor analyzes their performances.
Rss Feeds On Scott Stringer
Subscribe to an RSS feed on this topic. What is RSS?
Get Alerts On Scott Stringer
Receive My Alerts e-mails on topics covered on this page.More Alerts >>


text:
Freedom Flix
The 14th Amendment: A History
The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 to empower the federal government -- including particularly federal courts -- to stamp out a culture of lawless tyranny and oppression in the South by enforcing basic civil rights of newly freed blacks and their white supporters. This culture of oppression took many forms, including widespread censorship, the systematic disarmament of freedmen and white unionists, and the wholesale denial of economic liberty. At the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which the Supreme Court effectively deleted from the Constitution in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases. Today, that judicial error continues to take its toll on important freedoms like private property and the right to earn an honest living, which receive virtually no protection from courts despite their obvious importance to ensuring the economic autonomy of the freedmen following the Civil War and all Americans today.
Embed on your site:
Freedom Flix
The Institute for Justice is always looking for new ways to promote the message of freedom. To that end, IJ produced the following videos in-house to tell the stories of our clients and their fight for individual liberty.
None of this — the cases or these videos — would be possible without the continued generosity of our donors. We hope you enjoy them and share them with those who need a little inspiration.
Subscribe to our videos via iTunes or YouTube.
Texas Supreme Court Strikes Down Useless Eyebrow Threading License
Lawsuit Challenges Civil Forfeiture at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Airport
Case Closed: Minnesotans Win Right to Sell Homemade Goods; Agree to Dismiss Lawsuit
For the 13th consecutive year, IJ earned a coveted 4-star rating with the nation's largest evaluator of charities.


text:
Devyn Tufted Upholstered Daybed
Generous tufting on the back and sides of our platform-style daybed offer all the comfort of a sofa, making this an ideal spot for lounging, reading or indulging in some quiet time.
- Plush and deeply tufted with knots on the inside for maximum comfort
- Beautifully upholstered on all sides in stain-resistant fabric
- Fabric daybed features hardwood legs with a weathered oak finish
- Designed for use with a mattress only
- Stocked in sand Belgian linen and fog vintage velvet. All other options available via special order.
Shown in sand Belgian linen.
Devyn Tufted Upholstered Daybed
- Twin Bed Overall: 84"W x 45"D x 37"H
- Clearance Under Bed: 5½"H
- Twin Bed Weight: 209 lbs.
- Full Bed Overall: 84"W x 60"D x 37"H
- Clearance Under Bed: 5½"H
- Full Bed Weight: 228 lbs.
- Queen Bed Overall: 90"W x 66"D x 37"H
- Clearance Under Bed: 5½"H
- Queen Bed Weight: 270 lbs.
Devyn Tufted Upholstered Daybed
Devyn Tufted Velvet Daybed
Devyn Tufted Leather Daybed
Daybed Upholstery Mattress Slipcover
Euro Top Plush Mattress


text:
Moderators: Tonyblack, Jason, Toothy
Del wrote:What made me smile was a post by a friend...
"Neighbours have challenged me to a water fight. Should be heaps of fun. Thought I would quickly update my status while the kettles boiling."
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


text:
Moderators: Tonyblack, Jason, Toothy
Tonyblack wrote:How about the ancient (and stupid) British sport of Cheese Rolling?
I like your style!Straw Walker wrote:I think a few modifications to the marathon could help our chances of gold. Competitors would have to steal a car, drive it to the next checkpoint where they'd remove the stereo and set fire to the vehicle. Before the next check point they'd nick a pensioners handbag and use the money to get legless at the pub. Before the finish line competitors would graffiti the side of the stadium. Bonus points could be awarded for style, content and level of violence used throughout the event.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 8 guests


text:
Main Content
Order as many items as you like with our $4.99 flat rate shipping.
This item ships within two business days.
Order as many items as you like with our $4.99 flat rate shipping.
Need it faster?
Your mornings aren't complete without some mention of your Utah Utes. Whether you're listening to commentaries via the radio on your commute or catching up on replays while you're getting ready, nothing seems to brighten your day more than hearing about your Utes. Ensure that your Utah team is present each and every day when you bring along the Team Name travel tumbler. This nifty tumbler features a paper insert with team colors and graphics, making your early morning even more enjoyable. Just pour in your favorite a.m. drink and hit the road knowing your Utah Utes are along for the ride!
- Do not microwave
- Hand wash only
- Holds approximately 16 ounces
- Officially licensed collegiate product
- Removable paper insert
- Rubber bottom for better grip
- Slide tab closure on lid
- Stainless steel
- Team logo and colors
Utes Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Statistical odds and ends, courtesy of the NHL.com Event Summary for the 10/7/11 game:
- Marc Methot had only 15:33 TOI, the least of the entire D corps, though he was far from the worst. His last shift was with four minutes left in the third. Likely because they were looking for an offensive push on the blue line in the waning minutes, but never the less bizarre. He drew a minute and a half less PK time than Martinek & Tyutin, also.
- Sometimes the numbers do lie (despite Mike Commodore's insistence that his -8 last season was the statisticians' fault): Cam Atkinson was a -2 on the night, the worst on the team (his linemates were -1 each), but otherwise, Atkinson did not have a bad night. He wasn't a force to be reckoned with, but he had a few great opportunities dissolved by Pekka Rinne.
- Let's talk about Jeff Carter on the face off dot. 24-7? That is more than half of the team's combined 42 wins on the draw. He looked a little lost at times (we're not in Philadelphia anymore, Toto), but a 0-2-2, 6 SOG, +1, 77% face off percentage earned last night's paycheck for Goldilocks.
- Hit me with your best shot: Without a whole lot of bumping & bruising, the Jackets still took the line on hits, 23-10. Dorsett had 4; Russell, MacKenzie, and Pahlsson each had 3. No word on if Russell's check on Rick Nash counted toward that number.
- Give it away, now: Clitsome (3), Atkinson (2), & Russell (2), cost the team, contributing to the ugly 11 team turnovers.
- TOI leader: Clitsome, 24:29
- TOI loser: Calvert, 8:55