Reps Edwards, Conyers Just Put in Constl Amendment to Overrule SCOTUS

Congresswoman Donna Edwards has just introduced a Constitutional amendment, together with Congressman John Conyers.

Watch this video:
http://freespeechforpeople.org/edwardsvideo

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS APPLAUD REP. DONNA EDWARDS FOR FILING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL TO OVERTURN US SUPREME COURT RULING ON CORPORATE MONEY IN ELECTIONS

HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIR JOHN CONYERS, JR JOINS FILING

"Free Speech Rights Are For People, Not Corporations"

WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland introduced today a constitutional amendment bill to overturn the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing unlimited corporate money in elections. Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is a co-sponsor of the amendment bill.

A coalition of public interest organizations and independent business advocates praised the Congresswoman’s action. The groups, Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance, say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. Immediately following the Court's ruling on January 21, 2010, the groups launched a constitutional amendment campaign at www.freespeechforpeople.org to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades.

"Free speech rights are for people, not corporations," says John Bonifaz, Voter Action's legal director and the director of http://www.freespeechforpeople.org. "Our history has included prior amendments to the US Constitution which were enacted to correct egregiously wrong decisions of the US Supreme Court directly impacting the democratic process. The Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC demands a similar constitutional amendment response. We applaud Congresswoman Edwards and Congressman Conyers for taking this critical step toward restoring the First Amendment to its original purpose."

"The Citizens United decision is wrong as a matter of law, history, and our republican principles of government," says Jeffrey Clements, general counsel to http://www.freespeechforpeople.org. "The decision is devastating to our democracy, which is already dominated to a dangerous degree by corporate interest money. Congresswoman Edwards and Congressman Conyers are showing the leadership we need in Congress at this hour."

"The First Amendment was never intended to protect the likes of ExxonMobil, Pfizer or Goldman Sachs, nor should it," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "Public Citizen thanks Representative Donna Edwards for her courage and leadership in responding to the Supreme Court majority's aggression with a proposal for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment to its rightful purpose: guaranteeing the speech rights of real, live persons."

"An amendment allowing regulation of corporate spending in elections is not only necessary to correct the twisted logic of the Citizens United ruling," says Charlie Cray, director of the Center for Corporate Policy, "but will also go a long way towards rousing us as citizens to assert our authority over the now presumptively untouchable corporations."

"The American Independent Business Alliance is pleased to see Representatives Edwards and Conyers respond to public outrage over the Supreme Court's rewrite of our Constitution," says Jeff Milchen, co-founder of the American Independent Business Alliance. "America's independent businesses are among those which recognize that we need to limit corporations to their appropriate role--doing business. Allowing giant corporations even more power over our elections and government would be as bad for business as it is for democracy."

In addition to the filing of Congresswoman Edwards’ amendment bill, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts joined the call today for a constitutional amendment. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator Kerry said: "e need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals."

For more information on the constitutional amendment campaign, including a video interview of Congresswoman Edwards, see http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

Let's see how quickly this is killed off.

They will try and kill this bill. Maybe I've just missed it and haven't seen it addressed, but EVERYONE knows why the Republicans like this bill MOST corporations give to REPUBLICANS as they work for them. While the Democrats are certainly not exempt from corporate money I'd bet its about a 70%to 30% ratio or higher amounts go to Republicans and as this election of Obama showed the little people (you and I) donated more money to help get him elected.

Allow corporations free reign and people think the Democrats control everything now you ain't seen nothing yet, you'll be lucky to see a Democrat in congress OH unless they decide to get elected they have to start kissing corporate butt.

to be voted on by all the States and get a 2/3rd majority?

Or am I thinking of something else?

I always get the 2/3rds and 3/4s confused.

so I just don't see why this Constitutional Amendment is so exciting to people. It takes
F O R E V E R to get one passed.

Hell, I'm still waiting for the ERA.

Much quicker to force the BigCorps into bankruptcy....of course that's what they'll do when they can't pay their employees' pensions.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/our-debt-time-bomb-is-ready-to-go-ka-boom-2010-02-02

The problem is, with their newly-declared free speech rights, corporate interests will demand (and get) a seat at the table and inordinate influence over the constitutional convention process.

The 2/3 vote simply sets up a constitutional convention. If it gets that far, guess who'll run the convention. What limit will there be on how many or what kind of amendment comes out of the convention? Only the 3/4 of states requirement. I don't hold out much hope that regular people could persuade their states to shoot down any amendment with corporations screaming billions of dollars at the states.

Basically, the Supreme Court just doomed us any way you look at it but one.

Seriously, there is one way to solve all this. Corporations only exist because governments specifically allow that organizational form. Why not just take away the privilege of forming or operating a corporation within the United States, or do it on a state-by-state basis?

swiftly schedule a hearing on this amendment.

A Strongly worded Letter???!!!

Strongly worded letters are for War Crimes and the disappearance of billions of dollars

The decision by the SCOTUS may rank a letter of mild disagreement or one of clarification

I do not even mildly disagree

Not exactly as if Nancy, Harry have been putting the spurs to Conyers on this issue. :hi:

Out from behind your computer screen, web phone, whatever, and let's get this one done.

Would this totally kill the concept of corporate personhood, or it would it just prohibit them from unlimited spending on campaigns?

I'm fighting my inner cynic on this one.

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

I like it.

Let's see if it gets anywhere. (Or gets rewritten into something abhorrent, under the guise of reform).

This is language that I would definitely support!

SCOTUS justices whoring themselves out for ideological reasons makes Baby Jesus cry.

but the Obstructionist refugniCONS will scream, shout
and do everything they can to prevent this
from even being acknowledged as even existing

Typical refugniCON tactics !

as an org at
http://freespeechforpeople.org/contact

and blog and Email and organize

the motions to approve this amendment the corporations will have stolen two or three elections and we will be finished. There has got to be some other way to stop this.

...straight for the U.S. Senate, when Barbara Mikulski most likely decides to retire in 2016.

If I lived in Maryland.

I guess I'll just have to settle for casting my vote for Barbara Boxer in November.

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

At the outset let me emphasize that, imo, the majority opinion in Citizens United is based on a substantive misreading of established precedent as well as an unjustified departure from well settled principles of deference to precedent and to the principle that the court should not reach out decide issues not squarely before it or directly raised by the case presented. Justice Steven's extremely well written opinion makes a compelling case for all of the ways in which the majority gets it wrong.

Nonetheless, the proposed amendment to overturn Citizens United is unnecessarily broad and vague -- to the point where it appears to be more of a political act than a serious attempt to rectify the court's ruling.

First, the rallying cry of First Amendment Rights are for People, Not Corporations" is itself inconsistent with long settled constitutional jurisprudence. As Justice STevens notes, "We have long since held that corporations are covered by the first amendment".

Indeed, the proposed amendment appears to fall into the same trap for which Justice Stevens rightly critized the Citizens United majority: treating the issue as whether speech falls entirely outside of the protection of the First Amendment when it comes from a corporation. As Justice Stevens states, the answer is "Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary". The issue is whether there is a sufficient governmental interest to justify imposing restrictions on speech by corporations that do no apply to speech by persons. The answer to that question, up until Citizens United, had always been understood to be that there could be -- it varied case by case. The problem with CItizens United is not that it recognizes that corporations have free speech rights, its that it fails to recognize that the fact that a speaker is a corporation may, in particular circumstances, present a justification for limiting the exercise of those rights. Distinctions between the free speech rights of different speakers are common (for example, as Stevens points out, the law recognizes restrictions on the speech of prisoners not applicable to non-prisoners, or on the speech of students not applicable to individuals outside the educational environment, etc. Free speech is not absolute, either for persons or for corporations. Obscenity is restricted for all. Indecent speech is restricted when engaged in by broadcasters but not by book or magazine publishers. A bookstore owner has different first amendment rights than the owner of a radio station, even though they might both be considered part of the "press".

WHich leads to the other problem -- creating an exception for the freedom of the press. What, in today's world, constitutes the "press". If a newspaper ran a 2010 version of the Pentagon Papers presumably it would still be protected because it is the press. But what if a blogger posted the same material online? Is a blogger the "press"? DOes it matter what the subject matter of the blog normally is? If a corporation purchased ten pages in Newsweek to run the document would it be less protected than if it was put in the magazine by the editors?

My point is that there are a lot of issues raised by the language and as a result, the amendment will draw a lot of fire, even from those who might otherwise agree with the need to ratchet back the Citizens United decision. A better approach would have been to provide merely that the First AMendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending of any corporation (etc) in connection with the conduct of an election. As it now stands, the amendment is not limited to electoral matters. Thus, for example, it would allow states to prohibit a bar from paying (spending) topless dancers. It would mean that the decision in Pacific Gas and Electric v PUC, which held that PG&E could not be forced to speak against its will -- a ruling concurred in by Justice Marshall -- would have come out the other way. The list of other first amendment cases that might come out differently is quite long I fear.

onenote, you write:



Forgive me if I simply do not understand this objection. This isn't jurisprudence. It's a proposed constitutional change, to be effected by the process specified in the constitution. Jurisprudence follows from law. Prior jurisprudence can be and has often been rendered moot by the lawmaker. In this case, that is in fact the point. As courts have now interpreted the Constitution a certain way, the proposal is to make use of the Amendment process to codify a different meaning. The question is whether you would support or oppose that other meaning, and not at all whether it is in accordance with jurisprudence based on prior law.



The text of the amendment as currently drafted makes no reference to speech, but to the right of the lawmaker

to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity

of corporate entities created under law (an important distinction, as this does not seem to apply to group entities that exist outside a legal charter, such as informal groups, "movements" or, I would think, churches (who are infinitely free to speak, only not to claim tax exemption if they directly take sides in elections).

Clearly, a corporation will still be free to speak as it wills, in the same way that we are - retail, as a voice. On a corner at Hyde Park, or on this thread, for example.

But the Congress will once again be free to limit how much money that corporation gets to spend on blasting its message through all media and effectively drowning out any opposing voice that can't compete with it financially.

Your further points about what constitutes the press in the present age when constant, rapid and epic revolutions in all media are overturning all of the distinctions and understandings about public communication that have existed until now are thoughtful and well-taken.

However, they are irrelevant to this draft amendment, insofar as they apply equally to the already existing First Amendment, and to the First Amendment's protections of speech and the press! The conundrums that arise from the reality that it's no longer clear who or what constitutes the press, and otherwise from the electronic revolution that has put effectively infinite means of mutltimedial reproduction and distribution in the hands of nearly everyone with an Internet connection, remain to be settled regardless of what this draft amendment says!

Figuring out how to deal with the media revolutions is going to take decades, regardless of what happens next with regard to the new corporate power to spend without limits on election campaigns.. The latter is the subject of the draft amendment, not the former.

Given the structure and self-definitions of corporate institutions, Citizens United effectively gives them a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to corrupt the political means by every now legal means available to them. This is a fire that must be put out before democracy is burned down altogether. This is an immediate crisis of power in society, which is about to be given in even more unconditional and concentrated fashion to the largest corporate entities who already control most of it.

The proposed draft addresses that immediate crisis. It contains a clause that makes clear that it does NOT address the other, far more complex issue of the meanings of the press and free speech in the new media environment. You cannot criticize it for not doing the latter, because at worst (thanks to the second clause) it merely leaves in place the confusion about the First Amendment that we already have given present-day media.

Thanks for your comments.

not articulate.

It's amazing to me how many people don't understand the concept of three separate but equal branches of government.

Onenote, to boil it down: the SCOTUS is trumped by the Constitution, and Amendments to the Constitution are not subject to prior SCOTUS review, nor are they subject to repeal by the SCOTUS. Only an Amendment can override another Amendment, as was illustrated during alcohol prohibition.

Side question: if an Amendment was required to prohibit (and then reinstate!) the sale of alcohol, why wasn't the same thing required for each of cocaine, heroin, cannabis, opium, LSD, etc.?

Its nice to see that DU can be a forum for a civil exchange of ideas and I sincerely take your comments to heart. I want to take up to points.

First, and its not so much your comments as those that followed yours, that I'm addressing. I clearly have no problem with and would support an amendment to the Constitution to rectify the Citizens United case. I just think that that amendment should focus on making clear that the government can regulate "electioneering communications" by corporations and that the regulation of such speech isn't necessarily entitled to the same constitutional protection as the regulation of such communications by individuals (although some regulation of individuals engaging in election-related speech, such as limits on the amount of contributions, also should be permissible.

Second, I continue to believe the format of the amendment -- granting the federal and state governments essentially unbridled power to regulate any spending or activity by a corporation without regard to the protections of the first amendment other than the protection of the "press" is exceedingly overbroad and dangerous. Indeed, it might even leave a loophole where, of all things, the Citizens United result could end up standing.

Clearly, the right to regulate any activity or spending by a corporation notwithstanding the first amendment would cover the right of a state to regulate a corporation's spending of money to create a motion picture featuring nudity or sex even if not obscene. One might argue that any movie about anything put out by anyone is covered by the "freedom of the press" exception, but if that's the case, one run's into the problem that the electioneering communication at issue in Citizens United was itself a movie. Its hard to imagine that Deep Throat would be considered to be protected "press" speech, but a motion picture about a political candidate would not. That is why I think it is ill advised to formulate an exception to the First AMendment that goes beyond the arena in which the courts, up until Citizens United, had concluded restrictions on speech were appropriate -- electioneering communications by a corporate entity.

what about a corporation, like, say Wal-Mart, that can use it's money to create a media campaign on an issue? That is still innapropriate power.

How do you limit this amendment but yet expand it from your definition. I agree that we should not interfere with legitimate business, but why would you not also restrict other political activity? Campaigns are not the only way corporations distort the principles of democracy. What would be unconstitutional about allowing the restriction of their activity in the political realm?

do corporations "distort the principles of democracy"? And how do you define "legitimate business? Does the proposed amendment include corporations like the NAACP or Greenpeace, for example? Would you care to see a Republican Congress to have complete control over how those organization spend their money?

I think there should be a law making it illegal to hire someone to represent anyone else in Washington. Grassroots groups would have more power then ever. We have been sold that we can only win by pooling money. But our real power is in numbers.

Playboy. Lolita. I am Curious Yellow. All subject to being banned without any Constitutional protection unless they are defined as "press". And if they're defined as press under the amendment, so too would the movie at issue in Citizens United.

I suggested focusing on the specific issue in CU -- electioneering communications. But some broader scope might work, but it has to be narrower than all "spending" or other "activity".

Moreover, it doesn't draw any distinction between for profit and not for profit. A state doesn't like moveon or the naacp. They simply ban them from spending any money or or otherwise engaging in speech related activities in their state. Indeed, it could allow a state to bar corporate entities --including not for profit entities -- from filing amicus briefs in court cases or running get out the vote campaigns. Its just horrifically overbroad by not putting any limit on the spending or activity that it would allow a state to regulate.

Really. (The following is not an essay with an end I had in mind, but more a flow of thoughts...)

The truth is, corporations already only exist because of law. They are chartered as exceptions to what is otherwise the unlimited liability of individuals doing business. Laws already can limit pretty much everything they do, at least until now, but instead both laws and jurisprudence have progressively empowered them and removed limits, to the point where they've effectively taken over the government and in fact constitute a form of state power. It's actually jurisprudence - 19th century judicial activism - that first created the idea that corporations can hold the same rights as natural individuals, plus the immortality and potentially unlimited resources that individuals cannot achieve. But law has followed in the wake.

I'll grant you it's not an easy nut to crack. How to limit corporations (more simply: money) from completely taking over discourses, media times, political processes, legislation, budgets, the works - without opening the way to the enforcement abuses you describe where for example the limits might also be applied to literature or movies of all kinds.

I've often thought the real solution would lie in the principle of equal time. An end to private broadcast media - in television, that would mean channels or networks as the owned units, rather than hours - and their replacement with a system where everyone and anyone can claim equal time on unlimited channels just by asking for it. But the problem (one of several, I guess), as with so much else in our society is, how does this sustain itself economically? Who pays the bill, if not a profit-making entity? And how does such a system not turn into mostly fact-free noise?

Well, how about using anti-trust busting and RICO to whittle down the size of some of these corporations?

How about a ceilng on expenditures for each category ,and then increased taxation in proportion to the amounts they continue to spend? Tax at an even higher rate the too big to fail corps that offshore taxes after incorporating in the US?

Simply some suggestions.

And Jack Riddler, you are the best on these legal threads. Just first class.

I think we have become so used to allowing people with money special access that we have accepted what is completely undemocratic. 1 person one vote, one person one call, one person one knock on a legislator's door. If people want to group their power then 11 million people join and organization and they all speak as one. But no way should an organization be able to use money for 1000 people to have the same effect as 1 million. It's absurd.

The proposed text again:

SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

As I've thought about this case, several things have cautioned my knee-jerk reaction. First, the ruling appears to apply to non-profits...Sierra Club, NRA, Greenpeace, etc. These entities exist solely to speak and advocate. They have no fiduciary duties to a class of shareholders (i.e. owners) in the same way that a for profit corporation does. People form these organizations (including unions, say) to unite behind one voice. None of the groups I mentioned formed to make a profit, they formed to advocate a position and to educate and convince the public and any legislature of their position. I have a hard time restricting Greenpeace's, the NRA's or the Sierra Club's right to speech. It's the for profit corporations that I have a problem with. Their speaking on the same par with individuals and, yes, non-profits, because the very essence of a non-profit is to affect public policy, seems the real repugnant aspect of the ruling. In other words, non-profit's speech is political speech, the type of speech the First Amendment targets. A for-profit corporation exists to make a profit, to maximize its commercial position. It's speech, at base, is not political, but commercial, because a for-profit's corporation's number one duty is to maximize shareholder value.

Now suppose this amendment passes. It does not solve the problem. If this amendment were to pass, would it allow the legislature to regulate corporate speech? No. Why...because the Congress could not distinguish between for-profit corporate speech and non-profit corporate speech. Why? Doing that would violate the 5th and 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law...for all "persons." Therefore, the real crux of the problem, it seems to me, is not that the First Amendment applies to corporations. It's that because corporations are "people," they are entitled to equal protection of the laws...and that means free speech, due process, etc. The way to really solve this is to have a constitutional amendment that states that the term "person" in the Constitution refers to a human being only. In that way, corporations are not longer "persons" and no longer entitled to the "equal protection" of the laws with human beings, and the Congress can make laws treating them differently than human beings. (I also realize the can of worms this may open up in the abortion debate, but I think this approach is better than the amendment that addresses free speech only.)

If we read the First Amendment, it states as follows: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... Note what the Amendment does NOT say. It does not "grant" a right to speech. It says that Congress can make no law abridging the right. This language assumes that the right exists WITHOUT the Constitution...the First Amendment only preserves it. This traces right back to the notion of "inalienable rights" and "endowed by their Creator." I mean this: the First Amendment presupposes (assumes) that a "person" as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence and in the notion of "natural law" has the right to speech. A person is "endowed" with it by virtue of the person's birth. If the person is not "born," the person doesn't have the right. If the "person" is not a person, it has no right to begin with.

It is this way, I think, defining the word "person," wherever it appears in the Constitution, as a human being that gets to the heart of the problem.

since when have monied interests not controlled "government"?

otherwise, i generally agree, especially with the definition of "person".

However, I think there is a distinct difference. Let me back up by saying this: commercial entities can make political speech, but at base it is all aimed at increasing their bottom line (i.e. making a better commercial environment for their shareholders' value/wealth). But here is what I mean:

Merck advertising Vioxx is commercial speech, not political.

Merck advertising for drugs to be tax-deductible may be both. However, it is arguably commercial because its purpose is to ultimately increase sales and increase shareholder wealth. You or I advocating the same position is not commercial (putting aside the notion that either of us may own Merck stock). So...the point is this: the source of the speech MAY very well determine whether it is commercial or political. This notion exactly makes my point: corporations are not persons. They should have the same rights and privileges as persons, but the best way to do that is to definitively make them not persons.

Either way, I can see your point, but disagree mostly.

that would be the FDA. do you not think that Merck has not used its money...oops, I mean its speech... to influence how it is regulated? remember when Merck wasn't even allowed to advertise?

commerce is inherently political. politics always boils down to who controls the money.

But I still think there is such a thing as commercial speech that is not political. There are, as you note, that there are some forms of speech that are both and even political masking as commercial speech. However, I return to my point about personhood. The Court over the years has blurred the distinction between commercial and political speech (to the extent that anyone could distinguish them, political speech had more protection), but this decision is the final nail in that coffin. That said, the only way to really address the problem is the personhood issue. I'm a bit uncomfortable amending any aspect of speech. However, an amendment declaring that a "person" is actually a person? Doesn't bother me a bit.

there is something dreadfully wrong about corporate personhood.

is solved. Clarify the definition of person as a human being wherever it appears in the constitution would end this problem...

The different part is italicized.

It inherently as well as explicitly refers to natural individuals as distinct from corporate entities created by charter under law, and removes the latter from per-se constitutional protections of speech.

You have a point with the profit/non-profit distinction. However, profit companies and rich people constantly set up non-profit foundations to work politics for them. In the new order after Citizens' United, you won't see ExxonMobil doing too much direct electioneering. Rather, Exxon (and a bunch of other nasty multinationals) will jointly finance "non-profit" institutes that do the public work for them. Which is exactly what we've had all along, only there will be more of it.

Meanwhile, genuinely independent groups like the Sierra Club get most of their money directly or indirectly from for-profit corporations or their rich owners or other foundations that give out grants on their behalf. There is no way to get around the fact that you must be able to regulate profit and non-profit groups if you are to regulate anything at all!

It all comes back to the elected lawmaker. You have to rely on them to make the distinctions properly, to put proper regulation in place. So far that hasn't worked out very well, but denying them any power to do so is going to be worse, especially as it will guarantee an even worse set of elected lawmakers than the sorry corporate-financed lot we have now. An amendment like this takes the first step of lifting the judicial de facto ban on regulation, which is new, and restoring the legislature's power to regulate spending by corporate entities (of either kind, profit or non-profit). If in the process it also makes clear that corps and people are distinct (as in my rewrite), so much the better!

are not persons

it doesn't go far enough.

This is something I can really support and would get off my ass from behind the keyboard and support. Somebody hand me a pitchfork! This is something Americans would get behind. What a great idea! I know it won't go anywhere but who knows, maybe it will pick up steam?

seeing the light of day. Wasted effort but at least they got a photo op out of it and Swanson lit a candle for them.

The ERA as simply written as it was, could not get past the guards at the gates of various statehouses. This bill has even less chance to get passed.

Would cause me to agree with you for as relatively inexpensive whores as our congress-critters tend to be state legislators where the ratification action would occur are even less expensive. I think Mark Twain picked the wrong target in his maxim about school boards:In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made School Boards." If he'd considered state legislatures he might well have reworded that quote.

Watch out.

1) These first Congressional attempts will propose a WEAK Amendment that will let Corporations off the hook. They won't do the job for us.

2) A real Amendment will not just address this limited "persons" issue. That is much too shallow and will not solve our problem.

3) No Amendment will pass Congress anyway, because Republicans will not provide the 2/3 vote margin necessary in either House.


A real Amendment would do the following:

-) Hold Corporations publicly accountable to act in the public good (not just the shareholders' interest). Today, Corporations are LEGALLY REQUIRED to act selfishly against the public interest if necessary, solely to increase their profits. We need to change that.

-) Limit the Corporate Legal Right to Sue, only to protect a well-defined and previously-established commercial business interest or property. Today, Corporations can bribe politicians and deduct it as a business expense if they are sued. Some bribed politicians have passed laws which EXEMPT Corporations from being sued by people they harm. Lobbying and bribery should not be allowed as business expenses and Corporations should be held accountable for what they do.

-) Order that Corporations pay taxes and other fees at the same rates that individuals pay; that those taxes and other fees be reasonable and limited to no higher than the cost of the government service provided. Today, the top 100 Corporations pay little or no Federal Taxes because they have received tax breaks and been allowed to "offshore" their profits.

-) That no Corporation can provide a contribution, gift or other service or favor to anyone serving the public (no campaign contributions or lobbying); or require that any individual make such a contribution; but a government agency can publicly retain a Corporation and pay it a reasonable fee to conduct a public study of a well-defined public problem or provide a business product or service.

Finally, an Amendment would provide that any individual affected by a corporate activity has the right to sue that corporation to enforce any of these provisions. That's the BEST way to hold Corporations accountable to the Public -- let the public sue them.

If we can't sue; then we aren't protected.

sc

If this passes, the next time there's a GOP controlled House/Senate you can bet damn diddly sure they're going to use this to overturn Roe, Brown v Board and Goddess knows how many other "liberal" rulings they don't like.


BAD
BAD
BAD

You imply that the Republicans have been restraining themselves out of some sense of decency or respect for our system of government. I don't see a whole lot of evidence for restraint, fair play, or democratic values on their part (for example, see everything the GOP has done in the last 4 decades).

If it was politically possible for them to pass anti-abortion, anti-integration, anti-gay amendments, I'm sure they would have long ago.

Unfortunately, this is not a partisan issue. It's become pretty clear that "our" guys are almost as compromised by corporate money as their guys.

Dem Pubs oughta noes bettah than to try a power grab in da middle of social revolution toward Reason and Sanity....

This silly idea of corps having the same rights as humans is EVIL and socially counterproductive...

Its a way to keep us in check .... and poor....

Kick!

I would love for it to happen, but can anyone honestly believe that 2/3's of each house would pass it and THEN, 3/4 of the states legislatures and governors ratify it? Cmon now, even the ERA did not pass after years of trying.

Not to mention the country would be bombarded with political propaganda allowed by SCOTUS telling the mouth breathers their freedoms are being stolen....

Never happen, unfortunately...

of all of these related problems.

We're not going to get many if any shots at pushing through a constitutional amendment. Let's fix the root of all of these problems that created this mess. Overturn the notion that a corporation is the equivalent of a "natural person".

For corporations to be considered covered by constitutional law, it needs to state more than "person" (which should be presumed to be "natural person") but needs to say specifically "artificial person" and define what is meant by artificial person if the law wants to scope itself beyond "natural persons".

This constitutional amendment should be explicit in defining into our constitution that this rule must apply to all constitutional and other legal laws. Laws must explicitly state they apply to artificial persons or corporations if they are to apply to them.

If we don't do this now, and only talk about how it covers corporations' "freedom of speech", they'll use the corporate personhood crap to work around this in other ways or abuse other laws the same way they are doing now, basically asking for another constitutional amendment, which we might not have a chance at getting.

At least do this on the initial proposal they present, and negotiate if one has to back from that. As we failed by not starting with single payer, and instead lost public option because we started negotiating from there, we may fail here too if we try to "compromise" things down before the bill is presented.

So very true.

:applause::toast::applause:

It is an absolute shame that impeachment of a federal judge is so damn difficult. The Fatuous Five should resign en masse - particularly Scalia and Alito. Is dead the only way they leave? Maybe if they were "shunned"? That would be fun to watch.

Oh. My temper is a little out of whack thinking about those rightwingnut cranks in judges robes. :nuke:

This is great.

and what sorry excuses they'll give.

Let's see this become the law of the land now.

No other interpretation of the words shall survive the passing of this amendment.

That is all that is needed in a Constitutional amendment and it will do a world of good.

PLEASE

Always trying to influence and distort our elections.

Ordered this last week: http://www.corporateamericanflag.com/

He would of NEVER had done this.

She is doing Maryland proud!

.. shall be fought of every front. Thanks to Rep. Edwards and Conyers for firing this shot.

:applause: :woohoo: :fistbump:


(That means I approve!)

Anything short of the above is a half measure.

It tells the complete picture.

I think recently one of the NE states had something like this to vote down

corprate power -- was it Vermont? And, amazingly they didn't do it.

Perhaps it was a question of the wording or some other problem?

but anyway, we can't get 60 votes for HCR in the Senate, how are we going to get 2/3 and the nec # of states to ratify?

On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited funds in our elections.

The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.

This cannot stand. Sign up to protest this decision and protect our democracy! Free speech is for people — not corporations.

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/

Donna Edwards’ proposed Amendment:

Amendment language:

111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. J. RES. _____
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on ____________________

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.

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 for ratification:

‘‘ARTICLE—

‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’



"American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage. Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States."

- Professor Jamin Raskin, constitutional law expert at American University's Washington College of Law and Maryland state senator

Congresswoman is the sponsor, Congressman Conyers is the only cosponsor so far:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.74:

of this "serious and direct threat to democracy"? What scenario do they envision as a result of this decision that will remove the right and power to cast votes for elected officials from individuals and vest it in corporations?

:patriot:
I'm surprised to see Kerry backing this! Must be worried about his seat too, now that he sees we mean business... well no monkey-business anyway.