JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, February 14, 2010

[JURIST] US lawmakers on Thursday called for legislation [summary, PDF] to mitigate the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision easing restrictions [JURIST report] on political campaign spending by corporations. The proposal was put forth by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Chris van Hollen (D-MD) [official websites]. As outlined, the legislation would ban foreign companies, or those controlled by foreign companies or governments, from contributing to US elections. Additionally, it would ban government contractors and the recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) [official website] funds from contributing. The legislative outline also proposed that corporate CEOs be required to appear at the end of any political advertising they funded to endorse it, and would require corporate entities to report their spending to the Federal Election Committee [official website]. In a press conference [video] explaining the proposal, Schumer said:

The [Citizens United v. FEC] decision was coercive to our democracy, hard to understand, and ... an infuriating one. ... Unlike most bills, this one has a deadline for action. ... If we don't act quickly, the court's ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections. So our goal is to advance the legislation quickly, otherwise the Supreme Court will have predetermined the winner of the midterm elections. It won't be the Republicans or the Democrats. It will be corporate America.

In his statements, Schumer also referenced a poll [results, PDF] released last Monday, which found that 64 percent of those polled were against the ruling, including a majority of self-described Republicans.

Last month, the US Supreme Court decided [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [Cornell LII backgrounder] to ease restrictions on political campaign spending by corporations. The court was asked to consider Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [text, PDF], which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an "electioneering communication" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. President Barack Obama sharply criticized [JURIST report] the decision in his State of the Union Address [transcript] last month. Obama warned of the increased potential for powerful interest groups, both foreign and domestic, to wield excessive influence over American elections and called for bipartisan support of legislation to counteract the decision. The decision has caused a deep partisan divide [CNN report] over the topic, with Democratic officials largely opposing the decision, and Republican officials mostly in support.

[JURIST] The former attorney general for England and Wales Lord Peter Goldsmith [JURIST news archive] called for an investigation into whether British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects abroad. Goldsmith said [Independent report] that government arguments against their complicity in torture by foreign intelligence services had only created more confusion about the issue. He stopped short of calling for a full public inquiry, stating that the government should decide the proper manner in which to clarify the matter. Goldsmith's statements are at odds with those of the government, which has adamantly denied any collusion in torture. Last week, Home Secretary Alan Johnson [official profile] described the allegations as ludicrous lies. The statement by Goldsmith has been viewed [Daily Mail report] as particularly damaging to the government, as it shows the first split in its previously unified response to the allegations, and because Goldsmith was a senior government official throughout the period in which the complicity is alleged to have occurred.

On Friday, Director General Jonathan Evans [official profile] of MI5 [official website] denied [JURIST report] accusations that it had collaborated with the US over the alleged torture of former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Binyam Mohamed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] in response to criticisms that the organization did not respect human rights, that it misled parliament, and that is supported a culture of suppression. On Wednesday, the England and Wales Court of Appeal [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the government must disclose seven previously withheld paragraphs outlining the alleged torture of Mohamed. British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs David Miliband [official profile] accepted the court's decision, disclosing the information.

[JURIST] The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) [official website] on Friday ordered [decision, PDF] Elections Canada (EC) [official website] to comply with the Canadian Human Rights Act [materials] by ensuring that polling facilities are accessible to voters with disabilities. The CHRT ruled that in failing to provide accessible facilities for voters with disabilities, the EC "engaged in a discriminatory practice within the meaning of section 5 of the CHRA, [finding] the Complaint of James Peter Hughes is substantiated." The EC will also have to overhaul its policies and conduct training for Returning Officers and officials under their supervision concerning "disability and accessibility issues" as well as implement new procedures for addressing voter complaints on the subject in consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission [official website] and disabilities advocacy organizations and voters with disabilities. The Tribunal will continue to monitor the EC's progress on the order. The EC will also have to pay damages to Hughes for the discrimination he suffered. The Council of Canadians With Disabilities (CCD) [advocacy website] intervened as an interested party advocating [affidavit text] for Hughes's position.

Since 1992, amendments [EC backgrounder] to the Canada Elections Act [text] have resulted in improvements in access to polls for persons with disabilities. In the US, the General Accounting Office found [report] in June 2009 that access to polling sites for voters with disabilities after the Help America Vote Act of 2002 [text] has improved in comparison to year 2000 conditions from 16 percent to a current estimated 27 percent impediment-free facilities, but much progress is still needed. An estimated 45 percent of polling facilities that have potential impediments offer curbside voting to help voter with disabilities.

[JURIST] The Chinese Embassy [official website] in Washington DC claims that prominent Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng [advocacy website; JURIST news archive], missing for more than a year, is working in the Urumqi region [press release], according to human rights organization Dui Hua Foundation [advocacy website] on Saturday. The statement characterizes the information as "sparse," and it contradicts Gao's family by declaring that the activist has been in contact with his wife and family members. Chinese Foreign Ministry [official website, in Chinese] spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu [official profile] said [JURIST report] in late January that Gao is "where he should be." Earlier in January, Chinese lawyers and US-based rights group ChinaAid [advocacy website] called on [JURIST report] Beijing police to conduct a search for Gao.

Gao drew international attention in September 2007 when he wrote a letter [JURIST report] to the US Congress requesting assistance in improving human rights in China. Gao, who has also defended Christians and coal miners in China, claimed [AP report] that he was tortured after his arrest in 2007. He was convicted of subversion [JURIST report] and placed under house arrest in 2006. China has long received criticism [JURIST news archive] from watchdog groups for its treatment of rights activists such as Gao.