NEWS - Can states, cities apply mor

[TheTruth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: NEWS - Can states, cities apply moral rules to buying?

Can states, cities apply moral rules to buying? 

             Supreme Court will answer the question 

             Tuesday, November 30, 1999

             SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF
             and NEWS SERVICES 

             WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed
             yesterday to decide whether state and local
             governments can apply a moral standard to
             spending decisions by restricting purchases
             from companies that do business in countries
             with human rights abuses.

             The justices said they will use a Massachusetts
             case to decide whether such policies interfere
             with the federal government's authority to
             conduct foreign policy.

             A lower court threw out a Massachusetts law that
             limited state purchases from companies that do
             business with Myanmar, also known as Burma.

             A number of state and local governments have
             similar restrictions aimed at companies active in
             Myanmar and other countries, including China
             and Cuba. During the 1980s, many states and
             cities boycotted companies that did business in
             South Africa because of racial apartheid in that
             country.

             "Nothing in our federal Constitution denies to the
             states the right to apply a moral standard to their
             spending decisions," Massachusetts' appeal to
             the Supreme Court said. "Not one constitutional
             grant, prohibition or command requires the
             states to trade with dictators."

             Massachusetts' 1996 law generally barred the
             state from buying goods and services from
             companies doing business with Myanmar unless
             there is no other comparable bid. In effect, the
             law meant that a company doing business with
             Myanmar could sell goods to Massachusetts only
             if its bid was 10 percent lower than all other bids.

             The law made exceptions for purchases of some
             medical devices, for news-gathering companies,
             and for international telecommunications
             companies.

             Several months after the Massachusetts law was
             enacted, Congress imposed its own sanctions
             on Myanmar. Invoking the law, President Clinton
             in 1997 barred new U.S. investment in that
             country.

             The National Foreign Trade Council, which
             represents companies involved in foreign trade,
             initially challenged the Massachusetts law in
             1998. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
             other business groups backed the trade council
             in friend-of-the-court briefs before the Supreme
             Court.

             The state's appeal was supported in a
             friend-of-the-court brief submitted jointly by 14
             other states, including Washington.

             Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata, who filed
             an amicus brief in support of Massachusetts,
             was buoyed by the court's decision to hear it, an
             aide said.

             "It's a real positive step that they've decided at
             least to hear it," said Newell Aldrich, an aide to
             Licata. "We've hoped it would be overturned."

             In April 1998, Licata proposed expanding the
             city's "selective purchasing ordinance" to include
             Myanmar. The law was passed in 1990 in
             response to South Africa's apartheid policies.
             The measure failed by a 5-4 vote.

             Licata believes the issue concerns local
             sovereignty, not foreign policy, Aldrich said.