By Westley Ashley

My knowledge of social change in America (in particular, the Civil Rights Movement) was personalized at a young age by my mother and grandmother. My mother helped integrate a school in small town Arkansas and her mother served as a social worker of sorts for a five county area in southwest Arkansas. Either through my mother thwarting my attempts at avoiding school with her “in my day” rebuttals or through stories told during daily crappie- fishing excursions with my grandmother, I learned important lessons about American history through oral history. As I age, events like realizing kids born in 1992 can now legally purchase alcohol or realizing many of my peers have never heard of Heathcliff and the Catillac Cats stop me in my tracks. But when I realized how many Americans don’t have a close connection to the Civil Rights Movement, I was honestly shocked at my own cluelessness. It just never dawned on me that many of today’s young adults have parents that were too young to recall Jim Crow’s death rattle. In other words, I foolishly thought everyone’s oral history included a discussion of the Civil Rights Movement.

A recent addition to the world of graphic novels, March: Book One could go a long way toward connecting young Americans to events and issues of the Civil Rights Movement. This skillfully crafted graphic novel can also help individuals of all ages understand why others appear unable to shake off the injuries acquired during this dynamic period of social change. March is billed as a vibrant first-hand account of John Lewis’ lifelong struggle for civil and human rights in America. Book One is set on Inauguration Day 2009 but frequently employs flashbacks to inform the reader of young John Lewis’ life in the Jim Crow South. These flashbacks appear crucial to the graphic novel’s contemplation on how far we have come, yet how far we still must go. Book One spans Congressman Lewis’ youth in rural Alabama, his life-changing meeting with Martin Luther King, Jr., and the battle to end segregation through nonviolent lunch counter sit-ins.

As Congressman Lewis explains, March is patterned after a comic book he read in the 1950s that inspired him and many other activists at the time to join the movement and use the principles of nonviolence to battle racial discrimination.[1][2] In an article based on Mr. Aydin’s Georgetown thesis The Comic Book that Changed the World, Aydin investigates the power of one comic book to encourage social change.[3] Aydin found, despite the downturn in popularity of comic books, the art form succeeded in promoting the story of the Montgomery movement’s effective nonviolent protests to masses of subjugated Black Americans. The power of the medium did not stop with the American Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story, the comic book that inspired Congressman Lewis’ March project, found its way to South Africans resisting the apartheid regime and was rediscovered and translated into Arabic and Farsi less than a decade ago.[4]

The power of the medium is unquestionable. Nonetheless, for some, it raises the question “Why now? What could Congressman Lewis’ autobiography in graphic novel form do for social change some six decades following the start of the Civil Rights Movement?” Unlike the time period in which Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story was originally published, American literacy rates are generally higher than they were in the 1950s. More importantly, graphic novels are quite popular today. Take for example the success of The Walking Dead, Persepolis, and Watchmen. The potential for March to exceed the reach of Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story exists because of the current popularity of the graphic novel form. Additionally, the potential for March to inspire Americans to push for progress goes beyond the Civil Rights Movement. Just as Congressman Lewis put his life on the line in the pursuit of human and civil rights, there is always a need for others to fully commit to pursuing meaningful social change. With the current boom of the graphic novel medium and the plethora of social issues bubbling to the top of our melting pot, the authors’ timing is well received.

Award winning, Arkansas-born graphic novelist and artist Nate Powell was selected to illustrate the autobiographical, three-book series. The firsthand narrative of March is emotional for sure, but Powell’s illustrations add depth to those emotions. From the sequence on the Edmund Pettus bridge to the end of Book One, Powell successfully amplifies the impact of Congressman Lewis’ life story. The inspirational aspects of March definitely draw me to the series but Book One is simply an enjoyable (but stirring) read. Maybe it’s Powell’s use of panels, triptychs, and other devices, but I wish more topics were addressed in graphic novel form. Just think how enjoyable case books would be! Some might argue this graphic novel is aimed for high school-aged individuals and other young adults, but I find March appeals to older adults as well. It is easy to get lost in the innocence of Congressman Lewis’ youth (especially the sermonizing of chickens), in the excitement of a young John Lewis experiencing the integrated wonders of Buffalo, and in the energy of Book One’s climax. The days of preparation for civil disobedience and the physical violence endured by a young John Lewis depicted in Book One also work to give a perspective on the hurdles Americans face today.

I łŚ˛š˛Ô’t decide whether it is the subject matter or Powell’s artistry which led me to devour Book One in one sitting. I can say that Powell’s meticulous illustrations are definitely a draw. His ability to evoke such emotions through two-dimensional, black-and-white images is a talent obviously well-honed. Whether due to the personal story or the remarkable illustrations, March: Book Oneis a great tool in shining light on the sacrifice social change can require. Hopefully many of my peers will take the time out of their busy reading schedule to give March a glance. If nothing more, you’ll experience an interesting use of an art form to retell an important part of American history. With any luck, March will follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story and inspire more individuals to make the sacrifices that push us down the road of social change.

In reviewing March, I reached out to Mr. Powell in hopes that he could share his thoughts regarding working on March, the idea of art facilitating social change, and other such musings. What follows is a portion of our conversation:

WA: Do you personally believe social change is attainable through art?

NP: Art and music have long been central components of bringing dialogue to the table, of making our world something to be talked about—and to that end, acted upon. Social change exists in a continuum, and is always occurring (quickly, usually with blood and tears, and gradually, with blood and tears).

WA: How were you selected as the illustrator for March ?

NP: I’ve been working with Top Shelf for about 10 years now, and we have a wonderful relationship. In early 2011 I was finishing work on Any Empire and The Silence Of Our Friends, and I remember reading a press release about March being signed to Top Shelf sans artist. I took note, but thought nothing of it, and had more than enough work lined up at the time. A couple of weeks later my publisher, Chris Staros, called me up and suggested that I try out for the role of artist. I made two demo pages from the March script and sent them back to Congressman Lewis and Andrew. Then I got some feedback, redrew the pages, and resubmitted them. We worked out some kinks and very quickly felt this was the right creative relationship. It was a very natural decision. I think I officially signed on in fall 2011.

WA: What attracted you to taking on this series?

NP: Only a fool would reject an offer to make something together with one of the most incredible and significant human beings of the last 60 years. John Lewis is the genuine article. Beyond that, his life story told through his words is deeply moving and transforming. It was a no-brainer.

WA: Can you speak to Congressman Lewis’s goals in having his life depicted in graphic novel form?

NP: Congressman Lewis and Andrew are both a little more focused on getting this information out to a new generation of people—I’m also invested in that, of course, but because all three of us are on the same page politically and socially, I’m afforded the opportunity to focus more on the formal and creative aspects of telling that story, using a narrative language I speak well. John definitely became much more aware of the potential within comics as our collaboration progressed—he had to trust Andrew and [me] to navigate that field.

WA: What was so appealing about working on a project aimed at a younger audience?

NP: It’s not aimed at a younger audience—this is the problem with books marked as being 13+, or labeled as YA, or otherwise at a teen audience. Andrew (as well as Leigh, publicist for Top Shelf) were more aware than I was of the potential in schools and libraries, and that a large percentage of books were going to be read specifically by teenagers, but I had absolutely no interest in the perceived demographic of readership. I now acknowledge it, and have learned a great deal from the process of getting the book out into the world, but I also think that anticipating one’s audience in any way is how shitty books are made. And it’s what the book industry, in general, loves to do. I made a focused effort not to dial back any of the violence, language, brutality, or sheer gravity of any scenes in this trilogy—I recognize that I’m sort of the gatekeeper of visual content here, and feel it’s important not to police any of that by virtue of being aware these are books filling up schools. Let the work speak for itself. Lots of indie comics readers might pass on the book simply because it’s perceived as being a YA title with a particular agenda, so I’m personally working against that grain.

WA: When you take on projects, whether they are collaborative like March or your own projects like Swallow Me Whole, do you consciously think about your project having a role in facilitating social change?

NP: All of the stories I make, and much of the music I’ve made, has a strong social and political component, but it has never been my intention—my conceit—to play a role in social change. Any Empire is probably the most concrete and overtly political book I’ve done (not counting March), but it’s largely a book of questions in a Southern gothic narrative. The more I age past my dogmatic early-mid 20’s, the more strongly I feel that putting a “message” at the forefront of one’s work is the easiest way to make shitty work. A graphic novel must stand as a book first and above all else—otherwise, why spend 3 years working on it, when you could spend a couple of months on something much more rewarding, less time consuming, that will be virtually guaranteed to be taken more seriously? I never would’ve joined the March team if the book didn’t stand as its own narrative first—there were plenty of possibilities for it to be a message-first failure, and what sealed the deal for me was the sense within the script that the book was existing for its own sake, that the narrative itself was important enough.

WA: What are your thoughts on the fact that March is a collaboration of three folks of different ages and background working together to tell a portion of the back-story to such an important time in American history?

NP: …[I]t’s a very satisfying and formally successful combination of our various strengths, but its transgenerational properties (from a creative standpoint) have been illuminating. We’re all Southerners, and beyond John Lewis’ personal life narrative, so much of the visual storytelling is a product of combining my life experiences and environment (over a generation later) with his. Besides being a native Arkansan, I spent most of my elementary school years in Montgomery, Alabama, and my family hails from northern Mississippi. The shameful historical inheritance of the South is countered in equal measure by a culture, by surroundings, so distinct and beautiful that I’m honored to be able to inject some of my own memories into the visuals. In contrast to the usual narrative of how much time has seemingly passed since the Jim Crow South, I feel our comic helps simultaneously reveal how clearly fifty years is NOT a huge span of time. These are towns, streets, and farmland that we all know and recognize. By the same token, these struggles were waged by people just like us—by our neighbors, our parents, our grandparents.

WA: How did the idea of telling Congressman Lewis’s story (at least in Book One) as a series of flashbacks during Congressman Lewis’s preparation for the swearing in of President Obama develop?

NP: That comes down to Andrew, co-writer of Marchand John Lewis’ staffer. Andrew was present at the Capitol on Inauguration Day, and got to see some incredible things. His unique and privileged perspective there as a veritable fly-on-the-wall was something he thought could weave the past and present in a resonant and relevant way. So many of us were deeply moved on election night, Inauguration Day, and the months between, though many of us are confused by and suspicious of those same feelings. Especially as (in my personal opinion) Obama has firmly established himself as just another president, as a centrist- appeasing disappointment (I must counter that by also stating I voted for him both times, and would do so again), so many of us were shocked by what seemed the tangible possibility that things could actually be different on a very large scale, that it was possible to have a president who ˇÉ˛š˛ő˛Ô’t a total bastard. I felt the same way—we fight for change on smaller fronts, but to see evidence of a larger, more encouraging step forward was exhilarating. We cried, and felt that a divergent future was actually possible. In 2014, it’s very easy to forget that specific feeling (or more commonly, to be embarrassed by it), but the Inaugural scenes in Marchserve to remind most of us how we felt on that day, and allowing the reader to tie the past and the present together in a meaningful way.

WA: In illustrating March, what part of the story did you find the most difficult in depicting and why was it so difficult?

NP: One of the most challenging aspects is finding the proper balance between emotional, subjective, often internal representations of experience, and responsible, accurate depictions of real historical folks with real lives and families. The first scene I ever touched was young John Lewis’ first meeting with Dr. King, and I quickly learned how difficult it is to correctly draw King. His face is so recognizable, so iconic and simple, that any unessential line destroys the delicate rendering of his likeness. Virtually every character comes with that same baggage—a lot of research and practice to give the illusion of an effortless, consistent likeness.
Also, the unconcealed brutality. In Book One, the most difficult page was definitely drawing the corpse of Emmett Till accurately but “tastefully”, responsibly but without cleaning up the sheer horror of what these monsters did to a teenage boy.

WA: Along the same lines, of your illustrations in March, are there particular images you found (or hoped) to be powerful depictions of the Civil Rights Movement?

NP: In Book One, it’s definitely the scenes of activists walking through a rare snowy day in Nashville, exiting their church, moving through downtown, entering stores. This is largely because of the romance carried in Southern snow, of these young people being caught up in it amidst their mission. Another powerful sequence is John Lewis getting sucker punched as he approaches a Woolworth’s counter, then in a Steve Ditko-esque 3-panel sequence, forcing himself back to his feet, taking the counter seat as his peers continue to be beaten and pulled from chairs as they attempt to sit.

WA: Despite the United States currently having a President whose biracial heritage is so clearly evident, where do you see the Civil Rights Movement currently standing?

NP: The “Civil Rights Movement” is a fairly specific thing, and so I assume you’re talking about contemporary struggles for human rights outside of that specific movement—we’ve arrived at a spot in which we have no choice but to push issues to the forefront of public discussion again, revealing the deep, pervasive presence of white supremacy in our lawmakers and cultural fabric, at times made worse by many white people’s privileged thinking that we’ve arrived at a place beyond traditional racism (and this is by no means limited to racism, of course). The push backwards has consistently gotten louder and more dangerous in the last five years, and there’s no more space for Baby Boomer-era fence-sitting and moderation. While working and speaking out to advocate for all folks’ dignity and sovereignty, it’s also true that we do just have to wait for a previous generation’s attitudes to weaken and fade as people die off.

WA: What do you hope older readers will gain from March?

NP: What łŚ˛š˛Ô’t be gained? It’s a powerful, deeply personal narrative, and perhaps enough time has passed that a return to a first-person account never before depicted in this manner does in fact reveal new perspectives on these collectively shared cultural memories. The book’s narrative focus is much different than Walking With The Wind in that regard, and hopefully pushes older folks to revisit and share their own experiences of living through this massive social transition.

[1] http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/civil-rights-history-illustrated-in-new-book-62229571856 (accessed March 15, 2014).

[2] Graphic novels are much longer and tend to be more complex. While a comic book often tells a story over many issues, graphic novels more often have their storylines wrapped up in only one or two books. For the sake of brevity, I chose to combine both mediums in discussing the power of art to feed social change.

[3] http://clatl.com/atlanta/the-comic-book-that-changed-the-world/Content?oid=8807186 (accessed March 15, 2014).

[4] http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2011/02/20/Comic-heroes-of-the-Egyptian-revolution-How-Martin-Luther-King-found-his-way-to-Tahrir-Square/stories/201102200165 (accessed March 15, 2014).

The post Art Inspiring Social Change: A review of <em>March: Book One</em> & conversation with illustrator Nate Powell appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

V.L. Cox, born in Shreveport, Louisiana and later raised in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, is an Arkansas artist who over the years as shown her commitment to public service. Cox currently lives and works in North Little Rock’s Lakewood neighborhood. It is just north of the river that Cox’s public service is more prominently on display. Cox helped found the Argenta Art Walk (as it existed before joining the Argenta Arts Foundation) and served as a Historic District Commissioner, where she helped draft district public art guidelines for the city.

Cox has not limited her service to Argenta. It is her work with juvenile justice system-involved youth at the Arkansas Juvenile Assessment Treatment Center in Alexander, Arkansas which really speaks to art’s ability to create change. It also speaks to the impact public service can have on an artist.

As part of the Dream Big Festival of the Arts, about 20 teenagers spent their Spring Break painting murals inside the facility’s cafeteria with Cox. She designed the murals, the student were given the opportunity to vote on their favorite design, and then they all spent the week working as a team to add an artistic pop to the facility.

Cox acknowledges that a lot of these kids were not fans of one another – often fighting before the start of this project. When asked about the experience, she admits “I was actually a little afraid to begin working with kids that were incarcerated at first and had no idea what I was getting into. After the very first hour of meeting them and talking Art, all those worries went away. As the project progressed, I became pretty attached to several of those kids.” The kids showed her the utmost respect, were excited and extremely inquisitive about art and anything that had to do with it. Cox states “their eager faces and the patience and focus that they showed throughout the project went against everything that was expected of them. We had no fights, no disrespect, no arguments….”

When asked if she plans to continue working with under-served youth, she quickly answers YES and clarifies she “prefers the ones that most others have given up on, and something has to be done to stop the horrible ‘Cradle to Prison’ pipeline with the poor and minorities.”

Just as important to Cox, they simply became friends.

Her lesson from this experience: Never Underestimate the Power of the Arts!

The post Spotlight: V.L. Cox–Artist and Public Servant appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

I hope that you all enjoyed our articles last month on Women’s issues. We published an article written by Christina Sudduth and Mara D’Amico. This article talks about Nicaraguan law 779 which gives victims of violence stronger protection under Nicaraguan law. This is an important step in a country where 1 in 3 women are affected by violence. The article speaks about the national reaction to the law and what has changed in the two years since it was enacted.

We also published an article by Vanessa Chauhan, a program Specialist with the National Human Trafficking Resource Center, about modern day slavery. Vanessa’s article is a look at how human trafficking is prevalent around the world and she talks about the impacts on Arkansas especially. Arkansas recently passed legislation which addresses human trafficking providing for, victim assistance, among other things. Prior to 2012 there was no legislation on the books, in Arkansas, which allowed law enforcement to treat victims of human trafficking as victims, instead of criminals.

We hope that you got a chance to read those exciting articles, and if you did not, we encourage you to take the time now to learn more about the plight of humans, especially women humans, around the world facing threats of violence and human trafficking.

This month (March) we are focusing on Art as a medium for change. We are introducing a new recurring segment where we put a spotlight on a local person who is an agent for the change they want to see in their communities. This month our first spotlight is focused on local artist, V.L. Cox who helped found the Argenta Art Walk. She also is an agent for change by using art to give an outlet to youth who are currently staying at the Arkansas Juvenile Assessment Treatment Center in Alexander. She uses art to help encourage team work, and to forge friendships between angry and distrustful youths that are resistant to building relationships with others at the Center.

We also have a book review written by our very own Westley Ashley, Executive Editor. Westley talks about his reactions to the book March: Book One, the first of three graphic novels about Congressman John Lewis’ “lifelong struggle for civil and human rights in America.” This book is coauthored by Congressman Lewis and Andrew Aydin and illustrated by Nate Powell. Nate is an award winning, Arkansas born, graphic novelist. All of the men involved with this project were invested in using art to visually and mentally engage readers in the story they wanted to tell. Westley also had the opportunity to ask Mr. Powell some questions about his involvement in this project and those responses follow his review of this powerful, but fun, graphic novel.

As always, we hope that these articles inspire you, our readers to be agents for change. If not in the arenas of human trafficking and violence, then possibly the idea of using art as a way to create the change you want to see will inspire you to create some change of your own. If you have a reaction to any of these articles, we are welcome to the chance to begin a dialog about these issues, feel free to comment on the site itself, or write a reaction piece and send it to socialchange@ualr.edu . If you can contain your reaction to 140 characters you can tweet us @ARSocialChange . You can also leave comments on our Facebook page.

Thank you for reading,
Alexis

The post Letter from the Editor appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Conversations about the issue of human trafficking have finally gained momentum among communities across the United States. We are seeing a shift in the public’s false perception of human trafficking as an international issue that predominantly afflicts those in Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe, and are beginning to see a collective awareness of its prevalence in this very country, in our own backyards. No one state, city, small town, or community is immune – it is an all-encompassing crime that does not discriminate; it cuts across all demographics and societal norms.

Following President Barack Obama’s 2012 declaration, we have entered into the second consecutive year of recognizing January as the National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. This bold presidential gesture has brought human trafficking awareness and eradication to the forefront , and has challenged individuals and communities at all levels, from government actors to the general public, to once again engage in difficult, yet much needed conversations about slavery – both as it existed historically and now, as modern-day slavery.

Slavery as it existed historically, involved the treatment of human beings as commodities – property to be traded in the marketplace and conferring on owners the “right” to do with them as they pleased. Those that were enslaved were brutalized physically and psychologically, and were subjected to a life of indentured servitude. They were stripped of all their basic human rights and suffered some of the worst atrocities known to humankind.

The 2013 release of the movie 12 Years a Slave tells the powerful true story of Solomon Northrup, a free Black man, who was lured by a lucrative job opportunity and kidnapped, drugged, and sold into slavery. While a difficult movie to watch; it is a must see for all audiences. The director doesn’t hold back as he takes us through the vivid journey of exploitation and violence experienced by Solomon. This movie took me on a rollercoaster ride filled with mixed emotions of anger, horror and sadness. However, one thought lingered throughout – how much progress have we made as a society, when slavery is still alive and well? We are all kidding ourselves if we think that slavery ended when President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation or when the 13th Amendment was introduced into the U.S. Constitution. Skeptics may argue that today’s anti-trafficking movement is merely using exaggerated comparisons with historical slavery as a platform to build public awareness for the modern issue of human trafficking. But before you accept that hypothesis, I challenge you to take a step back for one moment and look at the exploitation and recruitment tactics used by owners then, and compare it to present day conditions; then ask yourselves, are things really that different?

I am confident that you have arrived at the same conclusion that I have – that today’s modern day slavery is not that different. The name may have changed, but the fundamental concepts of historical slavery still resonate in today’s modern society; the concepts just adapted to changing times. Today’s victims and survivors of human trafficking still experience physical violence and psychological manipulation at the hands of their traffickers. A trafficking victim today could be a migrant farmworker who endures a 13 hour workday without a break; whose employer confiscates all his identifying documents and threatens deportation. It could be an adult female whose boyfriend advertises her on the internet for commercial sex services, subjects her to a daily quota, and threatens harm to her or her loved ones if she doesn’t meet his demands. Or, it could be the 12 year old minor, who runs away from an abusive home, only to be seduced into providing commercial sex services by a pimp’s promise of stability and a protective family environment. Yes, the faces of the exploited may have changed, and each individual’s experience is unique, but traffickers are preying on the same vulnerabilities that have existed throughout time and are only getting smarter through modern day technological advances and tactics.

Promises of a better life, attractive job opportunities, lavish and simple gifts, or gestures of love and affection, are all manipulative ploys used by traffickers to recruit individuals into their growing trafficking business. Their initial investment in recruitment is minimal in comparison to the returns from their exploitation and puts truth to the oft-used adage that human trafficking is a low risk crime that yields high profits. The exploitation of human beings by other human beings is an unfortunate and long-standing practice that we all want to believe was abolished; the harsh reality is that these individuals are not living their lives under that blanket of fruitful promises. They are instead forced to work in deplorable conditions; they are stripped of their basic right to make their own choices, and are still being exploited as commodities by their traffickers.

The anti-trafficking community experienced a big win with the 2002 passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA); a formal recognition of human trafficking as a federal crime. In 2013, we further solidified our commitment to combat human trafficking when Wyoming became the final state to pass anti-trafficking legislation. The Policy program at Polaris Project , an anti-trafficking non-profit based in Washington, DC that works to combat all forms of human trafficking, conducts an annual review of state legislation through a 10 category criteria of core provisions required for a comprehensive legal response to human trafficking. The results of their 2013 review highlighted significant improvements in state legislation, country-wide.

The progress in Arkansas is worthy of mention. Rated as a one of the “Faltering Four” in 2012 because it had not made nominal efforts to enact a basic legal framework for human trafficking, it has since jumped up 3 tiers and is now a Tier 1 state that has achieved recognition for being one of the “Most Improved” states in 2013, with regards to human trafficking legislation. Arkansas now has a solid framework for addressing human trafficking with key provisions such as Safe Harbor and Victim Assistance, to name a few. However there is still a lot of work to be done. Now that we have laws in the books, we need to focus our efforts to ensure that they are being implemented. A Safe Harbor provision is only effective when we know that minor victims are given access to services instead of being treated and charged as criminals. This is a collective responsibility to be shared by all relevant actors, not just the criminal justice system. It is important to engage and involve the Child Welfare system to ensure that there are safe housing and trauma-informed services available for minor victims of this horrendous crime. Similarly, a law addressing labor trafficking can only really be applauded when it is used to protect workers from being forced to work for an employer who uses threats of deportation and physical violence to keep them in their jobs.

Human trafficking exists in Arkansas – yes it does. According to statistics generated by the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC), the national hotline addressing the issue of human trafficking in the United States, the NHTRC received 350 calls from Arkansas callers from the period of December 2007 through to September 2013. Of these calls, 51 cases referenced potential situations of human trafficking in Arkansas – both sex and labor trafficking is reported in the state. It is important to note that these numbers are limited only to calls that came in through the hotline and are largely dependent on awareness of both the NHTRC hotline number and, of the issue of human trafficking. Regardless, it is important to recognize that we now have tangible numbers to alleviate anyone’s doubt that trafficking occurs in the state. It is time now to divert our focus and ask the citizens of Arkansas how they are eradicating trafficking in their communities and throughout the entire state. With the passage of new robust laws and the 2013 creation of Attorney General McDaniel’s State Task Force for the Prevention of Human Trafficking , Arkansas is off to a good start. Still, there is much more to be done.

Now more than ever, every single human being in this country can play an active role in combatting human trafficking. From the teacher who incorporates human trafficking education into the classroom curriculum, to the police officer who responds to a call for help; from a trucker who observes women and girls move from truck to truck while parked at a truck stop, to a community member who drives past a suspicious business, with blacked out windows, that is open late; from an emergency room nurse who treats an assault victim, to the individual homeowner who opens the door to a magazine salesperson; each of these situations could be potential trafficking situations. It is therefore incumbent upon everyone to educate themselves about the issue of human trafficking , learn about the resources that are available in their communities, and most importantly, to be aware of their surroundings. If you see something, say something!

There are many ways to get involved – Call the NHTRC hotline, engage your government representatives, volunteer your time with local shelters and service providers, raise awareness about the issue of human trafficking and pass out flyers with the NHTRC hotline number. This is by no means an exhaustive list but should be enough to get you started.

As human beings, it is our responsibility to get involved. Be a voice for the vulnerable and continue the fight to abolish all forms of slavery. Let’s take an honest look at the historical roots of slavery and work together to implement lasting measures to combat their festering presence in the 21st century. Let this be our collective resolution for 2014 and for future years to come and let us not stop until we have dismantled this thriving business. Let’s eradicate slavery in our lifetime – make this our legacy.

Vanessa Chauhan is a Program Specialist with the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC), a program of Polaris Project. Polaris Project is a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC that works to combat all forms of human trafficking. To contact the NHTRC, please call 1-888-373-7888 or text BEFREE (233733).

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Vanessa Chauhan.

The post Slavery Still Exists appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Violence against women is a pervasive problem throughout the world, and global attention to the issue is prompting some nations to take action. This attention to such a critical women’s health and human rights topic could not be more timely considering the push-back occurring in Nicaragua against the national Law 779 which went into effect on June 22, 2012. (El Nuevo Diario, 2013; Red de Mujeres Contra la Violencia, 2012). Law 779 strengthens the protection of victims and creates an avenue for women to seek justice in such cases of violence against women. (Amnesty International, 2013; El Presidente de la República de Nicaragua, 2013). Nations seeking to adopt similar legislation should look at the successes and challenges of implementing Law 779 in Nicaragua.

One in three women are affected by violence, which is known to be experienced by women of all socioeconomic levels, races, ethnicities and across all parts of the world. (World Health Organization, 2013). Such violence has serious implications on women’s physical, psychological and economic health, and it is a critical issue that is rooted firmly in gender inequality. (World Health Organization, 2013). In June 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a comprehensive report on global intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence against women, incorporating results from almost 30 years of data. The report indicates that the prevalence rate of violence against women in the Americas is at around 36%, and other reports place parts of Nicaragua with rates as high as 52%. (World Health Organization, 2013; Ellsberg et al., 2000). The WHO utilizes this data to illustrate how violence can and should be prevented with the proper action, such as changes in national legislation against violence. (World Health Organization, 2013).

It is recognized that policies do take time to implement. However, with the new legislation in place for over a year, agencies such as Amnesty International and other human rights groups are still concerned by the reaction of some opponents of the law who are stating that the legislation is tearing families apart, and that it is “anti-family”. (El Nuevo Diario, 2013; Amnesty International, 2013). What these groups fail to acknowledge is that the violence itself is the real culprit, not the new law. (Amnesty International, 2013). Those who are in favor of Law 779 are disappointed by the lack of commitment shown by the government thus far. (Red de Mujeres Contra la Violencia, 2012).

During a personal conversation with one of the authors, a police officer of the women and children’s division of the Nicaraguan police department (Comisaría de la Mujer y la Niñez) described herself as being overwhelmed with the amount of violations occurring and being reported in her region. The officer noted that the majority of these reports fell under the category of physical abuse, and that, shockingly, many of the women were previously unaware that this was considered a crime. From January to March 2013, 8,768 reports were made to the Comisaría de la Mujer y la Niñez throughout Nicaragua, while only 6,706 cases had been reported during the same time period in 2012. (El Nuevo Diario, 2013). The statements of the female police officer, as well as a report released by the Network of Women against Violence, demonstrate that there are not enough resources being designated to the authorities to effectively respond to the needs of women in their communities. (Red de Mujeres Contra la Violencia, 2012).

Even if government officials had sufficient resources to fulfill the legislation, existing societal norms make it difficult for women to speak about the violence they have endured. As seen firsthand by one of the authors, in some of the smaller and more rural communities in Nicaragua, gossip can be ubiquitous and prevents many women from having a safe space where they can talk about the violence they have experienced. This is compounded by the belief held by some that violence is punishment for being a bad wife. Women choose not to disclose their experiences with violence for fear of ridicule and stigma from neighbors and family members. Finally, many women will not pursue litigation for their case because they may be financially dependent on their partner and may not be able to survive economically without his income. Even still, during conversations with Nicaraguan women, many spoke of the desire to know more about what is included in Law 779, how and what types of incidents they can report, and how important it is for them to know their rights.

In Nicaragua, activists are calling for a strong response from the government, including activities such as: investigating these ever-increasing reports on acts of violence against women; creating a national budget that reflects the changes outlined in the policy and strengthening the protection of the victims without weakening the expected penalty of offenders. (Red de Mujeres Contra la Violencia, 2012).

The attention of the international community and continued support from civil rights groups in the country is necessary to keep the momentum going, and to maintain the focus on women who are taking courageous steps to document their experiences with violence. In addition, political leaders around the world should take a look at the example of Nicaragua’s Law 779 to learn from these challenges and successes in order to push forward their own anti-violence legislation. The further development of women’s organizations and support groups can help encourage women and men, families and officials to take a stand against violence, to shine a light on gender inequality, and to further move local communities down the challenging path toward social change.

* Mara D’Amico was born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and received a Bachelor’s Degree in International Business and Spanish from Central Michigan University in 2010. Upon graduation, D’Amico moved to Miami, Florida and completed two AmeriCorps terms working in civic engagement at Miami Dade College and the University of Miami. She moved to Little Rock in 2012 to pursue a Master of Public Service at the Clinton School of Public Service. Here, Mara has served as Student Body President, and has completed field service projects working to address recidivism in Little Rock, violence against women on Ometepe Island in Nicaragua, and policy related to women and girls in Arkansas. D’Amico will graduate from the Clinton School in May 2014, and plans to work in the field of public policy.

Christina Sudduth is currently a graduate student at the University of South Florida College of Public Health, as well as a project coordinator for a statewide anti-hunger advocacy organization called Florida Impact. Her work and studies have focused on the issues of global health, hunger and poverty, and women’s rights within the context of the non-profit, public health research and public policy sectors. Before beginning her graduate program, Christina served two years as an AmeriCorps VISTA, coordinating civic engagement initiatives at Miami Dade College. A west coast native, she graduated from Oregon State University in 2010 with a B.S. in Nutrition Science and a B.A. in International Studies with a focus on Latin American communities and the Spanish language

1. La Agencia Centroamericana de Noticias (ACAN-EFE). Unos 97 casos de violencia contra la mujer se denuncian al dĂ­a en Nicaragua. El Nuevo Diario. May 11, 2013. http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/285755. Accessed February 3, 2014.

2. Red de Mujeres Contra la Violencia. Informe anual de femicidio 2012. http://www.reddemujerescontralaviolencia.org.ni/file/Violencia%20Intrafamiliar/Feminicidios/Informe_Anual_de_femicidio_2012_RMCV.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2014.

3. Amnesty International. Press Releases, Nicaragua: Authorities should support law protecting women from violence. 3 May, 2013. http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/nicaragua-authorities-should-support-law-protecting-women-violence-2013-05-. Accessed February 3, 2014.

4. El Presidente de la República de Nicaragua. Ley No. 779: Ley integral contra la violencia hacia las mujeres y de reformas a la Ley No. 641, “Codigo Penal” 2012. http://www.asomif.org/images/stories/CEDOC/Leyes/ley_779.%20ley%20de%20la%20violencia%20contra%20la%20mujer.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2014.

5. World Health Organization. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and nonpartner sexual violence. 2013. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/9789241564625/en/. Accessed February 3, 2014.

6. Ellsberg, M., Pena, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., & Winkvist, A. (2000). Candies in hell: Women’s experiences of violence in Nicaragua. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 1595-1610.

The post Law 779: Addressing Violence against Women in Nicaragua appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

The post Letter from the Editor appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Maumelle, Arkansas is one of many communities in the United States that has a local ordinance banning dangerous dogs inside its city limits. Maumelle’s ordinance does not simply define a dog that is dangerous or potentially dangerous based on any threatening or vicious behavior; rather, Maumelle’s ordinance bans particular dogs from the city belonging to, or possessing the physical characteristics common to certain breeds, namely “pit bull” type dogs. Maumelle’s ordinance prohibits keeping certain breeds of dogs within the city, including the American Pit Bull Terrier.

In 1987, Steele Holt filed suit against the city, alleging that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, that it unconstitutionally included the pit bull within the classification of banned dogs. In 1991, The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the ordinance that named American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and American Staffordshire Terriers as banned breeds in Maumelle. The court declared that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague in its classification of banned dogs, which includes: “any dog whose sire or dame” is one of the banned breeds; any dog whose owner registers or admits the dog as being one of the banned breeds; any dog “conforming or substantially conforming” to one of the banned breeds as defined by one of two kennel clubs; or any dog “which is of the breed commonly referred to as ‘pit bull’ and commonly recognizable and identifiable as such.” The court also concluded that the city had a reasonable basis under the state’s police power for including specific breeds in the list of banned dogs, namely for the purpose of preventing injury to people and property by dogs.

In August 2012, the American Bar Association (ABA) took an unprecedented step toward protecting dogs that are unfairly targeted by vague ordinances like Maumelle’s. ABA House Resolution 100 urges all states and local governments to repeal breed-specific bans and other legislation that place overly burdensome restrictions on owners of certain dog breeds. Rather, it encourages the lawmakers to implement breed-neutral policies that focus on dog behavior, as well as owner responsibility and accountability. The ABA’s decision follows the example set forth by a significant number of jurisdictions that have recognized the unfair prejudice of breed-specific legislation and its ineffectiveness at reaching its primary goal—reducing the number of dog bite injuries.

This article urges the city of Maumelle, along with municipalities in Arkansas and other states, to heed the recommendation of the ABA and repeal breed-specific dog ownership laws in favor of breed-neutral legislation. The analysis will examine jurisdictions that have enacted both types of laws as well as the subsequent results of each. Then, this article will argue that breed-specific legislation, such as the Maumelle ordinance, raises constitutional concerns, is ineffective in reducing the number of injuries caused by dog bites, and that breed-neutral legislation is a more effective and less discriminatory alternative. This article proposes a model ordinance, which is crafted upon an analysis of the cause and effects of breed-specific legislation as well as the reasoning behind its repeal in favor of breed-neutral laws. Finally, this article will conclude by urging municipalities to adopt the model ordinance set forth, because although most jurisdictions have upheld breed-specific legislation as constitutional, the vagueness and discrimination embedded in such legislation still welcomes a significant number of lawsuits that would not arise under the model ordinance.

To access full article click here

*Lindsey Bailey is a lifelong Arkansan, born and raised in Pocahontas, Arkansas. Lindsey received a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Arkansas State University in Jonesboro in 2007 and has since resided in Little Rock. She plans to graduate from the William H. Bowen ĚÇĐÄVlog´ŤĂ˝LR School of Law in May 2014 with honors. While in law school, Lindsey served as a member and Associate Editor of the ĚÇĐÄVlog´ŤĂ˝LR Law Review, was a law clerk at the Association of Arkansas Counties, and was named the 2013 Janet D. Steiger Fellow with the American Bar Association and the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office Consumer Protection Division. Lindsey plans to continue her legal career in public service in Little Rock after graduation.

The post Animal Law-Discrimination Based on Appearance: The Dangers that Fear, Misidentification, and Overreaction Pose for All Dog Owners. appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Law Libraries & Pro Se Litigants: Accessing the Information to Access Justice

One of the many effects felt downstream during the U.S. economic slump of the past several years has been the tremendous rise in pro se litigation (i.e., citizens who choose to represent themselves in court, generally due to their inability to afford an attorney) in today’s courtrooms. However, even as the need for access to professional legal services increases, officials in both federal and state government find themselves needing to cut existing services to lower budgets. Accordingly, many public law libraries find themselves taking on an ever-increasing role as the de facto “front line” for the growing demand for access to legal information, leading to increased pressure on law librarians and other legal-information professionals who provide reference services and often balance myriad other “new” duties in this transitional period of our profession.

With this new environment comes not only increased patron counts, but also the kind of expectations many of these laypersons have when they come see a “lawyer librarian.” In this role, we have a very important legal boundary when dealing with these patrons – we are not their attorneys, are not practicing law in this role, and cannot steer them into decisions by providing legal advice. It’s not only unethical; it can have negative repercussions should the person not have things go their way and feel they relied on your opinion to make a decision. With so many resources and layperson forms available now, however, and because many people are directed to law libraries by local court staff members without much direction as to what can be offered, many patrons have unrealistic expectations of what the reference librarian can do for them. That said, those in this field are librarians first – while legal boundaries must be respected, there is also a professional obligation for reference librarians of all stripes to treat all patrons equally and fairly and provide them with the tools they need to access and use the information that they seek.

Pro se patrons are a unique group of people from all sorts of different backgrounds, but almost all share a very limited background when it comes to the practice of law. Nonetheless, as persons representing themselves in court, they are required to perform at least some research to have a basic understanding of their legal issue, and they must submit documents that follow a certain basic format to be deemed acceptable in court. These patrons typically ask for assistance in choosing and drafting pleadings and forms, interpreting what something says, and in researching statutory law. Ethical conflicts arise regarding the level of reference service a librarian can give to the patron in this context, often when choosing forms, and particularly in drafting forms to be used in court. Patrons frequently inquire about the legal expertise of the person helping them, and, if that person mentions that they have a law degree, those expectations become even higher. Many library policies are vague on issues such as these, leaving librarians on their own when an insistent patron’s inquiry becomes problematic. The trick for librarians is to perform as experts on finding information, rather than as experts at analyzing all of the information gathered, in order to assist the patron in a meaningful way but also not cross into the unauthorized practice of law.

Fulfilling Ethical Duties While Avoiding Unethical Conflicts

The tools of legal reference are often very confusing to pro se patrons, and it is important that these patrons have someone to assist in the navigation of these tools, because, office water cooler stories aside, helping them remains our duty as librarians. To leave the user floundering about, unable to use available resources would be no less a disservice or wrong action than would giving out bad legal advice. The librarian’s loyalty lies with the patron and their information need. Yet fulfilling this need comes with restrictions that protect both the librarian and the patron who has taken on the task of handling the matter on their own. It is best for law librarians to help the patron as much as possible – providing basic source and term suggestions; instruction on using the tools, guides, referrals, and other pieces of assistance; and avoiding any lawyerly performance that might arguably establish a client-attorney relationship. There are certainly a broad range of approaches to this process, with some librarians acting as a source guide, and others as someone who teaches the self-litigant how to research on their own, but the bottom line is the same: if the line into “lawyerly function” is not crossed and the librarian is working inside the boundaries, they may assist their patrons without needing to fear unauthorized practice of law.

Game-planning for Law Libraries

Many library policies do not specifically address the problem of giving clear guidelines to both staff and pro se patrons about the scope of available reference service, beyond cautioning their librarians to tread carefully. Placing stated policies regarding the scope of available legal reference services in a prominent position where patrons can easily spot and read it as they wait their turn at the desk can be a great way to get everyone, staff and patrons alike, on the same page. In addition to increased awareness of policies, there should be available directories and referral lists of attorneys and local association numbers available to the patrons who need legal advice – what better way to show that librarians are here to help, but we are happy to defer to the “experts” when it comes to the actual practice of law?

Additional Reading

Randy Diamond and Martha Dragich. Professionalism in Librarianship: Shifting the Focus of Malpractice to Good Practice. 49 Library Trends 395 (2001). Retrieved on September 27, 2013 from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8346/librarytrendsv49i3c_opt.pdf?sequence=1

Paul D. Healey. Pro Se Users, Reference Liability, and the Unauthorized Practice of Law: Twenty-Five Selected Readings. 94 Law Lib. J. 133 (2002). Retrieved on September 29, 2013 from http://www.aallnet.org/products/pub_llj_v94n01/2002-08.pdf

Paul D. Healey. Professional Liability Issues for Librarians and Information Professionals (Neil Schuman Press, 2008).

Stephen Parks. A Lawyer/Librarian’s Efforts to Avoid the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Library Student Journal (2013). Retrieved on September 30, 2013 from http://www.librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/view/267/318

Drew A. Swank. The Pro Se Phenomenon. 19 BYU J. Pub. L. 373 (2011). Retrieved September 28, 2013 from http://www.law2.byu.edu/jpl/papers/v19n2_Drew_Swank.pdf

Arthur J. Lachman. Self-help services: Reducing risk by avoiding the formation of lawyer-client relationships. NLDA Insurance Program Bulletin. Retrieved September 27, 2013 from http://www.nlada.org/Insurance/Insurance_Bulletin_Winter_2005

The post The Pro Ses Are Coming appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

I. INTRODUCTION

During one of the most politically divisive eras in America’s history, a time in which name-calling and blame-shifting have replaced compromise as the modus operandi of politicians at all levels of government, it is a breath of fresh air to see Americans almost universally agree on an issue: the need for campaign finance reform. According to the most recent Associated Press-National Constitution Center Poll, eighty-three percent of Americans currently believe that there should be limits on the amount of money that corporations, unions, and other organizations may donate to outside groups that influence the campaigns of presidential candidates.[1] This national accord comes in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s highly publicized Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission[2] decision, which declared that limits on corporate independent expenditures are unconstitutional violations of free speech.

Citizens United is often criticized for the basic principle at the heart of the decision that spending money equates to speaking, with spending thus protected under the First Amendment.[3] The removal of limitations upon this form of corporate “speech” lead to the 2012 Presidential Election being met with a deafening roar of newly liberated “voices.” President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney raised 2.23 billion dollars between their personal fundraising efforts, political party fundraising efforts, and the efforts of Political Action Committees (“PACs”) such as Priorities USA and Restore Our Future.[4] The issue of eye-popping campaign finance statistics is not limited to national races, as here in Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor and Congressman Tom Cotton already have a combined $6.2 million on hand almost a full year before the Senate seat both are vying for is decided.[5]

Despite the public outcry against unlimited corporate campaign expenditures, the nation’s courts continue to open the avenue wider for corporate campaign finance. In particular, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson[6] continues an unsettling trend of deregulating corporate campaign finance. In Minnesota Citizens, the Eighth circuit held that reporting requirements and structural regulations imposed on corporate independent expenditures by Minnesota state law constituted an impermissible infringement on First Amendment rights.[7]

Meanwhile, the Eleventh Circuit faced similar disclosure requirements as those at issue in Minnesota Citizens and held in Worley v. Florida Secretary of State[8] that those requirements were entirely constitutional and supported by sufficiently substantial government interests. These two cases differ factually in several ways that allowed the Worley court to distinguish its holding from Minnesota Citizens without having to state outright that Minnesota Citizens was incorrect, but the two cases still contain a great deal of conflicting language as to the general constitutionality of disclosure requirements that creates uncertainty.

Minnesota Citizens is an impermissible and dangerous expansion of the basic tenets of modern campaign finance law as established in Citizens United. Despite the Court’s explicit ruling in Citizens United that disclosure requirements remained constitutional under the revised framework, the Eighth Circuit took deregulation one step further and relaxed regulations affecting how a corporation can donate unlimited amounts through independent expenditures. With corporations already dubiously allowed to spend money without limit in order to affect elections, holding that corporate free speech requires protection from additional reporting requirements journeys into the realm of preposterousness. With corporations, non-profits and Super PACs spending billions of dollars to secure elected positions for specific candidates, it is unwise to remove disclosure safeguards that ensure that the public at least knows the source of these billions. Accordingly, the Court should clarify its ruling in Citizens United and resolve the contradictions between the Eight Circuit in Minnesota Citizens and the Eleventh Circuit in Worley by holding that the types of disclosure requirements at issue in these cases are in fact constitutional.

II. BACKGROUND

Reporting and disclosure issues have been regulated as far back as the 1890’s, with regulations usually premised on the basic principle that the public has a right to know from where a campaign’s money comes.[9] This focus on disclosure regulation has continued in recent decades with both state and local legislatures strengthening disclosure requirements and enforcement methods.[10] Generally, the Supreme Court has held that “mandatory disclosure of contributions and expenditures is a constitutionally sound form of campaign finance regulation.”[11] Whereas Citizens United dramatically overhauled the Court’s approach to limitations on independent expenditures, the Court stayed firmly within the traditional analysis of disclosure requirements being a constitutionally viable means for regulating campaign finance.[12]

In making that decision, the Court relied upon both the well-established nature of disclosure requirements and the government interests outlined in key disclosure-related decisions such as Buckley v. Valeo[13] and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.[14] Buckley established, and Citizens United upheld, that disclosure requirements “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities.”[15] Additionally, the Court in McConnell stated that those challenging the constitutionality of disclosure requirements “never satisfactorily answer the question of how ‘uninhibited, robust and wide-open’ speech can occur when organizations hide themselves from the scrutiny of the voting public.”[16] Cases decided after Citizens United have continually held that in a variety of circumstances “elections are special circumstances where a right to anonymous speech must generally give way to governmental interests in the overall integrity of the democratic process.”[17]

It will be helpful at this point to briefly describe the type of disclosure and reporting requirements that were challenged in Minnesota Citizens and Worley. In the case of Minnesota Citizens, which dealt with corporations or associations seeking to make direct independent expenditures to candidates for public office, the state’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure laws outline the necessary requirements, which include setting up a political fund and making regular reports.[18] In addition, the corporation must appoint a treasurer to make sure the political fund does not become commingled with other business accounts, file a “Statement of Organization,” file an annual report detailing contribution activity, and file statements of inactivity for every year the fund exists but does not contribute any funds.[19] In Worley, though the facts were slightly different in that there were individuals seeking fund communications in opposition of a ballot initiative, the actual disclosure requirements were substantially the same.[20]

III. ARGUMENT

The Supreme Court should overturn the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Minnesota Citizens so as to clarify their ruling in Citizens United that reporting requirements and disclosure rules are constitutional. By embracing the holding and underlying legal basis of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Worley, the Supreme Court can ensure that America at least knows the source of the money flowing rapidly into our elections and can hold elected officials, corporations, and PACs accountable.

To understand where the Eighth Circuit erred it is important to understand the standard under which disclosure regulations are examined in terms of their constitutionality. Courts have long used the “exacting scrutiny” standard to evaluate the constitutionality of disclosure regulations, which does not rise to the level of strict scrutiny.[21] The reason for this less demanding constitutional standard is that although disclosure requirements certainly have some negative First Amendment implications, they “appear to the be the least restrictive means of curbing the evils of campaign ignorance and corruption….”[22] The specific formulation of exacting scrutiny is that there must be a “substantial relationship” between the disclosure requirement and a “sufficient government interest.”[23]

The primary problem with the Minnesota Citizens decision is that it inaccurately applies the exacting scrutiny standard, placing far too much weight on the restrictions themselves and glossing over the crux of the issue: does the government have a sufficient interest that is substantially related to the disclosure regulations in question. The Eighth Circuit, instead of searching for the “least restrictive means” or “less problematic measures,” should have followed the established precedential framework from Citizens United and a long line of other cases. If the Eighth Circuit had given the state’s proffered interests their due analysis, it would have been clear that the regulations in questions meet the “exacting scrutiny” standard.

The first and most important government interest in disclosure and reporting regulation is the informational interest. The Court explained the informational interest in detail in Buckley, stating that the sources of a candidate’s campaign finances “alert the voter to the interest to which a candidate is most likely to be responsive and thus facilitate predictions of future performance in office.” [24] The great weight of the informational interest is demonstrated by the Court in Citizens United failing to even address proffered government interests other than the information interest because that interest alone was sufficient to justify the application of disclosure requirements.[25]

This informational interest is even greater in the digital age, when a vast amount of information is available at our fingertips almost instantaneously. The Court in Citizens United summarized how this greater access of information increases the weight of the government’s interest by stating that exceedingly prompt disclosure (and the resulting transparency) provided by the Internet allows shareholders to be informed of their company’s political motivations, citizens to be alert to possible corporate corruption, and for a more transparent, open marketplace of ideas as intended by the First Amendment.[26] The importance of disclosure requirements makes any infringement on First Amendment rights a necessary infringement, as:
The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.[27]

Opponents of disclosure regulations often argue that the informational interest is not a sufficient interest because the types of small donations that are required to be reported do not give the electorate any significant information.[28] The Supreme Court and courts around the country have consistently rejected this argument because the issue is not whether each individual disclosure provides a sufficiently large piece of information to satisfy the exacting burden standard, but instead “the issue is whether the cumulative effect of disclosure ensures that the electorate will have access to information regarding the driving forces backing and opposing each bill.”[29] Disclosing small and seemingly de minimis contributions and expenditures also has benefits outside of the “cumulative effect” argument, such as how a variety of small contributions can show a breadth of support for a candidate or issue and how it prevents individuals and corporations from breaking up their large donations into numerous small donations to avoid having to disclose.[30]

Outside of the informational interest, there are several other government interests that the Court could rule are sufficient interests so as to satisfy the exacting scrutiny standard. One of these reasons, applicable only to disclosure regulations aimed at corporations such as those at issue in Minnesota Citizens, is that the public nature of corporations themselves suggests strict disclosure requirements should be held constitutional. The very nature of a corporation, in that “corporations are public actors because they exist only through a publically granted privilege,”[31] implies that they should not be afforded the same privacy rights as an individual. Just as corporations are not allowed to keep private their economic affairs, they should not be allowed to keep private their political affairs. The public nature of corporations considered with the need to protect the stockholders and the need to provide complete information to the marketplace of speech presents a compelling reason for the Court to overturn the Eighth Circuit’s unwarranted extension of its Citizens United decision. Another important governmental interest is the law enforcement interest, which essentially is defined as the interest the government has in full and complete disclosure records as a manner of policing to make sure no other campaign finance regulations are being broken.[32]

Apart from the traditional analysis of whether the government has a sufficient interest that is substantially related to the regulation, the simple fact is that disclosure regulations do not do much to actually burden corporations or even individuals so as to create a constitutional violation initially. The Eighth Circuit paints a distressing picture of small businesses tangled up in limitless red tape, but the reality is far less burdensome. As the Worley decision points out, most if not all of the requirements of typical disclosure regulations are things that “a prudent person or group would do in the same circumstances anyway.”[33] Certainly there is a small burden on organizations and individuals as a result of these disclosure requirements but by no means does that mean it is an undue burden. Corporations are already required to keep detailed records and books for tax and business purposes, it is hardly “undue” for them to have to keep a separate spreadsheet and send in a report once every three months detailing their campaign expenditures.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court of the United States should overturn Minnesota Citizens and clarify that strict disclosure and reporting requirements for campaign finance expenditures is entirely constitutional. This is a prime opportunity for the Court to prevent the further deregulation of corporate campaign finance by ensuring that the billions of dollars flowing into the election process at least remain accessible and not shrouded in mystery. Citizens United has been an exceedingly unpopular decision, but the Court must ensure that one of the only bright spots from that decision, the confirmed constitutionality of disclosure requirements, remains in effect. In doing so, the Court will potentially quiet some of the current political unrest across the nation regarding campaign finance, and hopefully provide for a more open and fruitful environment for public discourse, something sorely needed given the political status quo.

Works Cited

1 Associated Press & GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications, THE AP-NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER POLL at 21 (2012).
2 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
3 Id.
4 Gregory Giraux, Bloomberg By the Numbers: 2.23 bln, BLOOMBERG.COM (Dec. 12, 2012, 6:00 AM), http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/201212-12/bloomberg-by-the-numbers-2-23-bln/.
5 James Hohmann, Tom Cotton, Mark Pryor both raise $1m and change, POLITICO.COM (Oct. 15, 2013 10:09 AM), http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/pryor-raises-1m-for-cotton-race-98321.html
6 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012).
7 Id. at 877.
8 717 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2013).
9 Richard Briffault, Campaign Finance Disclosure 2.0, 9 ELECTION L.J. 273, 273 (2012).
10 Id.
11 Id. at 279.
12 Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366.
13 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
14 540 U.S. 93 (2003).
15 Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64.
16 McConnell, 540 U.S. at 196, (quoting McConnell v. Fed. Election Com’n, 251 F. Supp.2d 176, 237 (D. Dist. Col. 2003)).
17 Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Has the Tide Turned in Favor of Disclosure? Revealing Money in Politics After Citizens United and Doe v. Reed, 27 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 1057, 1084 (2012).
18 MINN. STAT. § 10A.01 et seq. (2012).
19 ID. at §§ 10A.12, 10A.20.
20 FLA. STAT. § 106 et seq. (2012).
21 Worley, 717 F.3d at 1243.
22 Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64, 68.
23 Id.
24 424 U.S. at 67.
25 558 U.S. at 366.
26 Id. at 370.
27 Id.
28 Worley, 717 F.3d at 1249.
29 Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2001).
30 Worley, 717 F.3d at 1251.
31 Daniel Winek, Note, Citizens Informed: Broader Disclosure and Disclaimer for Corporate Electoral Advocacy in the Wake of Citizens United, 120 YALE L.J. 622, 655 (2010).
32 Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68.
33 717 U.S. at 1250.

The post All Quiet on the Corporate Front: An Argument for the Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

We are about to start another month at the Journal. This month we are looking forward to our Second Annual Symposium, Catalysts for Change. This Symposium is going to be held on November 8, 2013 in Room 323 of ĚÇĐÄVlog´ŤĂ˝LR’s William H. Bowen School of Law. We have more information about this event under the Catalysts for Change section of the website. There are going to be two free hours of CLE credit offered during this event, with one hour focused on cause lawyering and one hour focused on the use of interpreters in the courtroom. The CLE hours are going to be from 2-4pm. If you are planning to attend we would appreciate an e-mail at socialchange@ualr.edu, just so that we can get a head count.

The Journal’s publication focus this month is loosely framed by public service. Following the partial government shut down and entering into the traditional election month in U.S. politics, we wanted November’s publication to also talk politics on some level. Therefore we are starting off with an article by one of the Journal’s members, Daniel Ford, which discusses the need for disclosure requirements to be made by electoral candidates. His article takes a look at some state reactions to Citizens United.

In the middle of the month we will publish an article from Bowen Law Library faculty member, Jeff Woodmansee. Professor Woodmansee’s article focuses on how the increase in Pro Se Litigants is affecting public law libraries across the country as well as the duty these professionals must serve while avoiding the trap of providing legal assistance.

We also are going to publish a book review of How Change Happens – Or Doesn’t- The politics of US Public Policy, by Elaine C. Kamarck. Her well written book offers an interesting look at the history of “change in the government and politics” of the United States.

We hope that through these articles we can open up a dialog on the duty of politicians and other public servants to maintain honesty and fairness. We once again want to extend the invitation to respond to our articles through the website, or through any of our social media outlets. If you have a written response article that you would like published, send it to us at socialchange@ualr.edu. We look forward to hearing from you and seeing all of you at our Symposium on November 8!

Thank you,

Alexis Cook
Editor-in-Chief
Arkansas Journal for Social Change and Public Service.

The post Letter from the Editor appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.