View previous stories
	Vulture Fund in London seeks to claim $100m from Congo by Jubilee Debt Campaign & agencies   May 2012   Vulture fund FG Hemisphere is seeking to claim $100 million from the Democratic Republic of Congo at the UK Privy Council on 28 May, on a debt it bought for just $3 million.   The case is being heard under Jersey law, the highest appeal court for which is the Judicial Committee of the UK’s Privy Council. The debt originated in the 1980s when the Yugoslavian government lent money to Dictator General Mobutu to win contracts for their businesses.[1]   Vulture funds specialise in buying up the debts of countries in financial difficulty. Once other creditors have written-off debts and a country has become ‘solvent’, they sue for the full amount, claiming extortionate profits.   In 2010 the British parliament passed a law limiting the amount vulture funds could claim from some impoverished countries, including DRC.[2] However, the law was not made to apply in British crown dependencies such as Jersey. FG Hemisphere is suing under Jersey law, claiming assets held by a mining company in Jersey which are owed to the Congolese government.   Nick Dearden, Director of Jubilee Debt Campaign, said: "The debt being claimed by FG Hemisphere is unjust. The vulture fund is claiming extortionate amounts on a debt based on an odious loan to the dictator General Mobutu. It is outrageous that the Jersey government has allowed this appalling case to be brought.”   At the start of February 2012 the Jersey government announced it would pass legislation similar to the UK to prevent exorbitant vulture fund claims against some of the most impoverished countries. However, no law has yet been introduced to the Jersey parliament.   Nick Dearden added: “The Jersey government has had two years to bring in UK-style legislation to clip the wings of vulture funds. By failing to do so, it is allowing an unscrupulous vulture fund to take money away from the poorest country in the world.   “It is not clear why money owed to the Congolese government, from mining revenues in the Congo, is in Jersey to start with. The Jersey government needs to make the activities of its companies far more transparent, to help prevent the island being used for tax avoidance and capital flight out of impoverished countries.”   FG Hemisphere is claiming assets held by the mining company GTL which are owed to the Congolese state mining company Gecamines. GTL is registered in Jersey. It is 55 per cent owned by US company OM Group, 25 per cent owned by Forrest Group and 20 per cent by Gecamines. According to the UN, the Democratic Republic of Congo is the poorest country in the world.[3]   1. The debt originally dates from loans to the regime of General Mobutu to build power transmission lines in his home region of Gbadolite in the 1980s.   2. The Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 limits the amount a vulture fund can claim from the 40 poorest and most indebted countries in UK courts, on debts contracted before 2004. The forty countries are known as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries and include countries such as Liberia, Zambia, Tanzania and Nicaragua, as well as the Democratic Republic of Congo. The international community has agreed to cancel significant amounts of these countries debts, currently totalling $120 billion for 32 countries.   3. UN Human Development Report, 2011   4. Jubilee Debt Campaign is part of a global movement demanding freedom from the slavery of unjust debts and a new financial system which puts people first. For more information see http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk Visit the related web page
	Conservative dominated US Supreme Court Upholds Citizens United by Senator Bernie Sanders USA   June 25, 2012   US Supreme Court Upholds Citizens United; Tightens Corporate Stranglehold on Campaign Finance.   In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has struck down Montana"s 100 year old law that banned direct corporate political campaign spending in state and local elections. The court reversed a lower court ruling, but did so without allowing argument in the case.   Previously, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the law due to the state’s dramatic history of corruption, but the Supreme Court"s ruling today rejected that decision, arguing that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”   Critics, however, say all available evidence -- especially in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United decision -- suggests such arguments are absurd and say today"s decision only strengthens the role of corporate money and independent wealth while weakening the ability of lawmakers and citizens who might try to temper the amount of corporate money that is now flooding into state-level campaigns.   In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer -- who was joined by Justice Ruth Ginsburg in a desire that the high court hear the case -- wrote that "Montana"s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubts on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so."   “The Court’s arrogant move – refusing to even grant a hearing on a Montana law that has served the state well for a century – underscores the need for quick action on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and allow sensible restrictions on political spending,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar.   “The Court’s majority has once again chosen ideology over common sense and left American voters defenseless against the forced sale of our elections to big corporations and billionaires,” Edgar added.   US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), criticized the court"s announcement today and their original ruling in 2010.   "The U.S. Supreme Court"s absurd 5-4 ruling two years ago in Citizens United was a major blow to American democratic traditions," said Sanders. "Sadly, despite all of the evidence that Americans see every day, the court continues to believe that its decision makes sense"   "I intend to work as hard as I can for a constitutional amendment to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision," he added.   “The 2012 elections make one thing clear: unlimited spending by super Political Action Committees (PACs) and secretive nonprofits is corrupting our political process and threatens to swamp our democracy,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program.   “Increasing numbers of Americans believe our government is bought and paid for by special interests and that their votes don’t matter. By not taking this case, the Court missed a critical opportunity to rein in some of the worst excesses of Citizens United, and other rulings, that created this super PAC mess.”   "Citizens and the nation are not going to accept the Supreme Court-imposed campaign finance system that allows our government to be auctioned off to billionaires, millionaires, corporate funders and other special interests using political money to buy influence and results," Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, told the Los Angeles Times. "A major national campaign finance reform movement will begin immediately after the 2012 elections."   June 2012   US Justice John Paul Stevens: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court''s disposition of this case.   "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.   They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.   "The majority''s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907.   "The Court"s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."   Justice Elena Kagan (then Solicitor General):   "When corporations use other people"s money to electioneer, that is a harm not just to the shareholders themselves but a sort of a broader harm to the public that comes from distortion of the electioneering that is done by corporations."   Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”   Since then, Super-PACs and corporations have spent record amounts of money in elections nationwide. Corporate spending soared during the 2010 election cycle to $294 million, 427 percent over the previous midterm elections in 2006. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer both suggested that given these “huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance,” Kennedy’s assertion doesn’t hold and the court should reconsider its ruling.   It will have the opportunity to do just that on Thursday when it considers the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in December to uphold the state’s century-old ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections. In February the US Supreme Court informed Montana that it could no longer enforce that law until further notice, and now it must decide whether to hear the state’s case. This is perhaps the most serious challenge to date to the Citizens United decision.   In a recent New York Times op-ed, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer writes that the effects of not being able to enforce the state’s anti-corruption statute “are already being felt here.” He describes “corporate front groups funneling cash into our legislative races,” and bills “ghostwritten by a host of industries looking to weaken state laws,” including overturning a state ban on the use of cyanide to mine gold, and developers seeking “to build condos right on the edge of our legendary trout streams.”   Schweitzer notes that he vetoed the bills but “these big players will eventually get what they seek” if they are allowed to continue their efforts to buy the electoral process.   It is that kind of corruption—which Justice Kennedy minimized—that has moved dozens of local communities across the country to speak out during Resolutions Week, an effort to pass local and state resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Over 100 resolutions have already been proposed.   People don’t want to see a repeat of Wisconsin, where more than $63 million was spent in the recall election ($50 million went to Walker)—much of it from out of state, including $24 million from outside groups.   Local public officials also realize that they can’t raise the kind of resources a handpicked, corporate-favored candidate can now access. There is also an obscenely exorbitant presidential campaign on the horizon with a price tag expected to reach $2 billion or more, including hundreds of millions of dollars flowing in from wealthy and corporate interests. In May alone, conservative groups spent $20 million in just nine swing states and Michigan.   Legislators have clearly reached their own conclusion that there is an “appearance of corruption.” Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have joined Montana in asking the Supreme Court to uphold the state’s ban on corporate expenditures.   This coalition is a mix of red, blue, and purple states, including New York, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia. Senators John McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse also filed an amicus brief in support of Montana, writing, “Evidence from the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles has demonstrated that so-called independent expenditures create a strong potential for corruption and the perception thereof.”   A tremendous amount of money is flying around in electoral races. Cities are also impacted by what happens at the state and the federal level — impacting financing, programs that can be implemented, and so on. So when things impact federal elections, and state elections, by the nature of how local government works they also impact local government. Visit the related web page
	View more stories