Should a carefully crafted constitutional amendment be passed to overrule Citizens United ?

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission, 558 U.S. 50, 130 S.Ct. 876

It should reserve all rights both enumerated and unenumerated to natural persons, specifically prohibiting Constitutional rights to corporations. END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD NOW!

Well and succinctly said! :thumbsup:

sw

As someone said back a long time ago 'The trouble with our modern corporations is that they have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned.' Nothing lacking either of these attributes can be considered a person, in any meaningful sense. The idea that a corporation has rights of political expression, that can be wrongly restricted, is both nonesensical and pernicious. The persons who are shareholders and officers and directors of a corporation can have, and express, their political views, and do so quite freely on their own account. The idea that the corporation itself has political views, and must be allowed their free expression, is just a means to let corporate officers amplify their views using other people's money, often without their consent. No one, after all, polls share-holders concerning whether money should be donated to politicians, or paid out in dividends. All a corporation is, or needs to be, is a legal device that allows contracts to be entered into without being personally binding on the person who signs them, and for shielding the whole of an investor's capital from liens associated with the failure of one business he or she has invested in.

You've got it all in a nutshell.

:loveya:
sw

Citizens United is simply a logical outgrowth
of the abomination of "corporate personhood"
and the way to overturn Citizens United is to
attack the root issue from which it grows.

Tesha

Just rolling things back to pre Citizens United doesnt eliminate the corruption that has infiltrated our campaign system.

I can think of four that have either perjured themselves to get on the Court or have gone duck hunting with petitioners that, in a place where the rule of law was followed, would be bounced out on their ass.

What would the wording of the amendment say?

it needs a super majority