U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin is under no illusions that there will be an easy path forward for a joint resolution aimed at curtailing the amount of money being used to influence voters, but he also isn’t willing to wait on a better political climate.

“The U.S. Supreme Court said that money had a constitutional right to speech,” Harkin said by phone Thursday, referencing the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case decided in January 2010. “They equated money with speech [and said] that you couldn’t limit the amount of money that a corporation or any individual could give in a campaign. Now, the Supreme Court said we could limit, through campaign finance laws, how much a candidate can raise, but that we could not limit a corporation or a person on how much that corporation or that person wanted to spend of their own money to influence an election.

“This bill that we are pushing would amend the Constitution to basically say that money is not speech.”

In a Congress that has been loathe to pass meaningful legislation, the idea that any joint resolution to amend the Constitution could gain enough bipartisan traction to reach the two-thirds majority it needs in both chambers is, to be blunt, laughable — something Harkin and the bill’s other 14 supporters openly recognize.

When asked by The Iowa Independent if the bill stood any chance at all, Harkin was quick to answer: “No, not now.”

“I think as we go into the campaign next year, and as people see more and more of these distorted ads, which the candidates have no control over — you are going to see all of these devastating ads on candidates and where they stand and all of that, paid for by some bogus group. And the Supreme Court has given them a shield so that they don’t even have to say where [the money] comes from,” he said.

“I think the Supreme Court was wrong, but they’ve raised this to a constitutional position. So the only way to address this is to amend the Constitution; to say that money is not speech.”

What has resulted, Harkin said, is “an abundance of money in political campaigns” and a situation that isn’t in the best interest of the American people.

Marybeth Gardam, Iowa organizer for a grassroots movement known as Move to Amend, agrees with Harkin’s sentiments and shares his frustration with a political process that’s being overrun by money. She and her organization do not, however, agree that this proposal to amend the Constitution goes far enough or that it is traveling through sustainable channels.

“Move to Amend, in general, feels that this is counter-productive because it will be shot down, and also because it’s like asking for a slice of the pie when you need the whole thing,” said Gardam, who is also on the national leadership team for Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and serves on their Corporations Versus Democracy Committee.

Passage of a constitutional amendment, which requires not only a two-thirds vote of each chamber of Congress, but ratification by three-quarters of U.S. states, will be a great deal of work, she said, which mandates a need for massive grassroots understanding and support.

“So this just seems like a lot of work for something that only going to get you half the way there — not even half really,” she said.

Move to Amend’s position is that while reversing Citizens United is an important step, the country isn’t going to get to where it need to be until corporate personhood is abolished and all the constitutional rights that were intended for persons are removed from corporations.

“This [proposal] addresses the ‘money is not speech’ piece of it, but it does not address the ‘corporation is not a person’ piece of it. And as long as they have that right — which they got very illegitimately in the 1880s — they will be able to use that power against ‘we the people,’” Gardam said.

“There is quite an uneven playing field and, until we fix corporate personhood, the game will stay rigged.”

Here’s the full text of the proposed joint resolution:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article–

`Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on–

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

`(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

`Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on–

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

`(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

`Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’.

There is also a video of the press conference organized by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat and author of the proposal, and attended by supporting Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dick Durbin and Jeff Merkley in introducing the joint resolution.

Gardam says Move to Amend is hoping to allow time for community organizing at a grassroots level to raise the voices of individuals throughout the country, which will ultimately provide the language that will be used in a future constitutional amendment.

“What we are trying to accomplish is a really broad outreach and education program to get citizens aware of what’s going on, to get them to understand the difference between an initiative like the one that Senator Harkin sign onto and one that actually has a chance of curtailing the unchecked powers of national and trans-national corporations,” she said. “Through this process we will be building the type of awareness and demand from below, which we believe will be the only thing that will truly work.”

One of those educational opportunities will be taking place Friday evening in Cedar Rapids when Iowa Move to Amend shows the video embedded below to members of the Occupy Cedar Rapids movement. (More details available on our political calendar, available through Factbook or on our Facebook page)

The vigil will begin at 9:30 p.m. at “People’s Park” on the State Capitol grounds in Des Moines. The march to Terrace Hill on Saturday morning will begin at 9:30 a.m. in the downtown sculpture garden.

Occupy Des Moines has gone on for nearly three weeks, despite a slew of arrests at the Capitol on charges of trespassing early on in the movement. Most of the dozens arrested have asked for a jury trial on those charges, with a lawyer for the group saying their First Amendment rights were violated.

Members of the group are now camping out in Stewart Square, at the intersection of E. 14th Street and E. Grand Ave. Overnight protests are also taking place in Iowa City, Cedar Falls and across the country, following the lead of the Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York City.

Rallies have also been held in Ames, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Dubuque, Mason City and Sioux City.

Members of Occupy Des Moines have done “banner drops” over Interstate 235 through Des Moines, and have plans to do more. Also this week many members of the group turned out to protest a visit from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to West Des Moines.

Wednesday about a dozen of the demonstrators appeared before a judge in Polk County District Court. Most pleaded not guilty, but a handful opted to plead guilty and pay a fine of $317 for the simple misdemeanor.

Sally Frank, a law professor at Drake University and member of the National Lawyers Guild, is providing legal support to the demonstrators. She has submitted jury demands and expects the demonstrators to represent themselves with assistance at trial.

Frank said a total of 37 people were arrested on Oct. 10, as well as two juveniles. A date has not yet been set for the jury trial.

“If the state chooses to violate people’s First Amendment rights by making unlawful arrests it will have to prove it’s case against people who will exercise all of their rights within the system,” said Frank.

Megan Felt opted not to plead guilty on Wednesday, saying “our brutal arrest epitomizes the profound inequality and injustice of our governing system.”

“When average citizens get thrown in jail for participating in democracy and exercising our First Amendment rights, while big banks like Wells Fargo can crash the economy, kick people out of their homes and walk away with record profits and get a get out of jail free card, that’s not right,” she said.

Joe Fagan of Des Moines was one of those that pleaded guilty, although he was not apologetic for his actions. He said he was “there for a reason,” and blamed the country’s economic woes on financial institutions that “lied to people.”

“I plead guilty to trespassing, to being on the wrong side of some dotted line someplace, but I know in my heart what I did was the right thing to do,” Fagan said.

Dozens of demonstrators were arrested Oct. 9 for refusing to leave the State Capitol grounds after the 11 p.m. closing time. Many of them are contesting their arrests and have asked for a jury trial, saying their First Amendment rights were violated.

The group, including a “chain gang” of about 10 demonstrators, marched to Wells Fargo’s downtown Des Moines offices after gathering at the courthouse, where a sign on the door said the building was closed “due to an emergency.”

Check back later for a story on what happened in court.

Awlaki was born in New Mexico, and two presidential candidates, along with a host of civil liberties writers, have called into question the legality of killing a U.S. citizen without a court proceeding.

Former New Mexico governor and current presidential candidate Gary Johnson came out with fellow candidate Ron Paul against the drone attack, which also killed another U.S. citizen during an attack on a convoy carrying the two members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

From The Hill has Johnson’s comments:

“Well I as President of the United States I would have been a lot more transparent about what, and I understand all of the accusations against al-Awlaki and they are very significant and I don’t want to minimize at all the threat that he was posing to the United States. But he is a U.S. citizen, he was a U.S. citizen, and never before have we targeted a US citizen for death,” the former New Mexico governor said on Fox News.

And the Wall Street Journal has this from Ron Paul:

“Nobody knows if he ever killed anybody,” Mr. Paul said after a breakfast at Saint Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics. “If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.”

Wall Street Journal does point out the congressman from Texas applauded the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, who said at the time, “Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served.”

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), denounced the killing of Awlaki, telling CBS News:

As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.

[…]

The government’s authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the president – any president – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.

And Glenn Greenwald, a former a constitutional law and civil rights litigator and writer for Salon, took exception to the government’s killing of Alwaki with incendiary prose:

Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.  When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.  When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Timesnoted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.).  It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.  The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world.  The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

Awlaki studied extensively in the U.S., earning a bachelors in engineering from Colorado State University and a masters in education leadership from San Diego State University.

The city of Grand Rapids has prosecuted for this crime 399 times since 2008, according to documents released to the ACLU pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. In a press release the ACLU said:

“Anti-begging laws that punish that most vulnerable segment of our society are not only harsh, they are unconstitutional,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. “Removing the reminders of poverty from our sight is not the answer to Michigan’s economic woes. We need laws and practices that provide compassionate solutions for our growing homeless population.” …

“Jail time is a harsh price to pay for being poor,” said Aukerman. “The ACLU is not opposed to laws that protect citizens from threats, intimidation and harassment. However, throwing people in jail because they are poor or homeless is not only wrong, it’s illegal.”

You can read the full legal complaint here.

“There is no question in my mind that Sheriff Darr should resign,” said Luis Toro, director of Ethics Watch in a release Monday. “Any person who uses their office to retaliate for political expression… no longer deserves the office nor the trust of the people who put him in office. This is corruption at its most obvious, and Sheriff Darr should resign his office immediately.”

The details uncovered in the trial are damning.

Darr managed to defeat Deputy Mark Nicastle in November but, in the years between the time Nicastle announced his intention to run for sheriff and Election Day last November, Darr launched two internal investigations against Nicastle and demoted him from lieutenant to sergeant.

The nine-member jury voted unanimously that Darr violated Nicastle’s First Amendment rights and awarded Nicastle $24,600 in back pay and $99,000 in damages for pain and suffering.

Toro said Darr’s resignation would be the best way to restore public trust in Adams County government.

Darr did not return messages for comment.

“I’ll put you through to his office,” said an Adams County deputy, “but I doubt anyone there will talk to you about this.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

State Judge Mark Somers gave Jones the option of paying a $100,000 “peace bond” or face a jury to decide whether he can hold the protest without paying the bond. Jones refused to pay the bond and will go before a seven-member jury beginning at 8 am on Friday.

Jones says he intends to hold the protest no matter what the court decides.

All of this is extremely unusual and almost certainly unconstitutional. The boundaries of the First Amendment are not determined by juries. And the practice of requiring those who wish to protest to put up bonds before holding controversial protests was declared unconstitutional decades ago by federal courts.

This principle goes back to the civil rights era, when cities run by racist leaders who wanted to prevent legitimate civil rights marches would try to charge those who organized those protests for the extra police protection needed to keep them safe from the KKK and others who might react violently to them.

That it now involves someone who preaches against civil rights for Muslims is not a legally relevant difference; the government must protect the right to protest and protect those who engage in protest from violent reaction no matter how heinous the message of the protest may be.

At least some of the local residents, including many Muslims, recognize that principle. In addition to CAIR-Michigan leader Dawud Walid, the ACLU of Michigan and some local Muslim leaders have also spoken out in defense of Jones’ right to protest.

Earlier, the ACLU of Michigan and others slammed local authorities for trying to deny Jones the right to protest outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

The ACLU said that authorities are denying Jones’ Constitutional rights.

The government should “not impinge on a person’s right to protest, even when their speech is as distasteful and offensive as Rev. Jones’ is,” said Rana Elmir, communications director for the Michigan ACLU. “We should combat hate speech with more speech. I disagree vehemently with Rev. Jones’ message, but I believe wholeheartedly in his right to express himself.” …

But Elmir said:

“We can’t forget both religious freedom and the right to protest. The city of Dearborn should honor both of those rights equally.”

Elmir said that Dearborn has had issues in previous cases of denying a person’s right to protest.

She added that the ACLU is concerned about anti-Muslim hate speech and discrimination, but said that the solution is not censorship.

“The government can not silence demonstrations in anticipation that their message will not be welcomed.”

Majed Moughni, a Dearborn attorney, agrees that Jones has the right to protest. Moughni is not a fan of Jones, having burned him in effigy last year outside his Dearborn home because he had threatened to burn the Quran. Jones later oversaw the burning of a Quran last month.

But Moughni says it’s wrong for the city and county to try to hinder Jones’ rights. Moughni added that this is turning Jones into a hero.

“Instead of him being the bad guy, now he’s the hero,” Moughni said. “They’ve turned him into a hero of the First Amendment.”

“The prosecutors should withdraw their demands and let him speak as he wishes, which is his right under the Constitution.”

And another prominent Muslim group also spoke out on Jones’ behalf:

Also today, Arab Community Center for Economic & Social Services Director Hassan Jaber issued a statement backing Jones’ right to protest — and residents’ right to criticize him.

“At ACCESS, we work to empower people to become fully engaged members of their community,” Jaber said.

“We cannot teach the U.S. Constitution in our citizenship classes while opposing First Amendment rights. So we support Mr. Jones’ right to speak, but we do so with our own postscript: That his message of bigotry and hate does not resonate here.”

No matter what the jury decides tomorrow, the state court’s ruling is baffling and almost certain to be struck down by a higher court if challenged.

Jones could be arrested if he goes ahead with the protest outside the mosque without a permit, said city spokeswoman Mary Laundroche. She added that the permit had been denied for “public safety reasons.”

Jones said he had not received notification that the permit had been turned down but that he was undeterred.

Jones is due in 19th District Court in Dearborn on Thursday to answer prosecutors’ claims that his demonstration could cause a riot and demands he post a “peace bond” to cover police costs.

Dearborn officials said Jones can still demonstrate at one of two “free speech zones,” including City Hall. Before denying the permit, city officials expressed concern about public safety, traffic and disruptions to nearby churches.

Strangely, the Dearborn mayor cited the city’s alleged commitment to the constitution even while clearly violating it:

“Our commitment to the Constitution is unwavering, not merely convenient, which makes your hyperbole about Sharia Law being practiced in the courts or civil law of Dearborn nonsensical,” O’Reilly wrote. “So, you are coming to protest against an imaginary threat that doesn’t exist in our community. Not in our courts, not at our City Hall, not on our streets and not in any of our places of worship.”

If Jones challenges the permit denial, which he almost certainly will, it is very, very unlikely to hold up in court. The 1977 Supreme Court case National Socialist Party v. Skokie put this issue firmly to rest. The right to protest cannot be violated even if the event will be deliberately inflammatory and might lead to a violent reaction in the community.

And Skokie also tried the tactic of charging the Nazis who wanted to march a huge amount of money for an insurance bond, as Wayne County is seeking to do in this case; that has also been declared unconstitutional.

The suit was filed by the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, founded by Domino’s magnate Tom Monaghan, on behalf of anti-Muslim group Freedom Defensive Initiative, founded by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, after SMART rejected their application to place the ad on buses in the metro Detroit area.

The ad says: “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get Answers!” It also contains the website address for the organization.

Ironically, an earlier ad placed on SMART buses by the Detroit Coalition of Reason, a collection of atheist, freethinker and humanist groups, was a key factor in the ruling. That ad said: “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.”

The judge’s ruling was almost inevitable. SMART is a government agency that has allowed other groups to place controversial political and religious ads on their buses. It cannot, under numerous precedents, reject an ad based on its political or religious viewpoint or content.

You can read the full ruling here.