Three More Wisconsin Communities Vote to Amend the U.S. Constitution-Money is not speech.

[midnight]

Madison, WI (April 8, 2015) ­ On Tuesday, April 7th, three communities voted in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that money is not speech and that only real people should have inalienable Constitutional rights. This would reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to big money in elections.
All of the referenda passed with striking majorities: Watertown (69%), Evansville (80%), and the Town of Reedsburg (63%).
This brings the total number of Wisconsin communities that have called for an amendment to 57. In total, over 2.4 million people (41% of Wisconsinites) live in these jurisdictions. Across the country, 16 state legislatures have voted for an amendment, as well as over 650 towns, villages, cities and other organizations.
After the votes were counted, Brad Geyer, the resolution campaign leader in Watertown said: “Instead of representative government serving the people, increasingly, we have corruption, conflicts of interest and bribery. A handful of people on the US Supreme Court have handed power to the highest bidders. We will overcome this corruption when people step up in enough numbers to show our leaders our true will.”

"Democracy is a living, breathing ideal that needs to be nourished and worked on. Now is time to right this wrong! Stand with your fellow citizens across the land and get this referendum passed in your town, village, or city. We’re here to help you.”


http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2015/04/three-more-wisconsin-communities-vote.html

[merrily]

1. K & R (I don't know how TPP will interface with this, though.) nt

[midnight]

2. That is a huge problem with keeping this trade agreement- all secret.

It should of been called the STTP. Secret Transpacific Trade Partnership.

[merrily]

3. What we do know is bad enough, IMO.

[midnight]

4. Yes. But it's always about the resources and who gets them.

"The Obama administration's focus on the TPP is part of its "pivot" to Asia — former national security adviser Tom Donilon called it the "centerpiece of our economic rebalancing" and a "platform for regional economic integration" — after too many years of American foreign policy being bogged down in the Middle East. Scholars such as Columbia University's Jagdish Bhagwati are worried that the TPP goes further, as an effort to "contain" China and provide an economic counterweight to it in the region. Many of the TPP's current provisions are designed to exclude China, like those requiring yarn in clothing to come from countries party to the agreement, and could possibly invite retaliation. In addition, 60 senators have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation, which wouldn't directly affect China as a non-member, but could create a framework for broader action."


"— Tobacco: Originally, the U.S. had proposed that tobacco be treated differently than other kinds of goods, in that countries would have permission to restrict its importation and sale. This summer, it executed something of an about-face, which alarmed anti-smoking advocates who worry that tobacco companies will continue to sue nations for passing laws that heavily tax cigarettes or ban certain kinds of advertising."

The Peterson Institute has a helpful overview of some of the more contentious issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership

[eallen]

5. And what does that do to the 1st amendment?

I don't think the people who propose this have thought it all the way through. Here is part of what is proposed: "The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law."

That pretty clearly says the state of Texas, as one example, may ban newspapers, publishing houses, and other companies from, say, selling atheist literature. Or leftist literature. Or books on evolution.



Living in a state where the rabidly conservative legislature would eagerly regulate the media, I am far from sanguine about such an amendment. Right now, such state laws are prevented by the federal courts, only because the 1st amendment's protection of the press applies, including to businesses.

[WisconsinBrad]

6. Clarification on MTA Amendment

Here is the amendment language proposed in Watertown, WI:
"1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights ─ not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations; and
2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech."

Various groups around the country use slightly different amendment language. The final wording is likely not yet determined.

We are not changing the first amendment. We are working to undo decisions by the courts that invented rights for artificial entities.

From "Dartmouth College v. Woodward" in 1819 to "Citizens United v. FEC" in 2010 and a number of cases in between.

Also we are working to allow some regulation of the money. In "Buckley v. Valeo" in 1976, certain campaign finance restrictions were said to be unconstitutional.

With each of these decisions, later courts widened their meaning or even changed the meaning. For example, in Buckley, it is now said that Money = Speech. This is far wider application than Buckley actually stated.

When the Constitution was written and ratified entities like corporations themselves had no constitutional rights. Only through later court cases did they gain these rights.

Freedom of the press is outlined separately in the first amendment, by the way.

Constitutional rights are for We the People. Corporate owners have free speech. Corporate employees have free speech. Union members and non-union workers all have free speech.

What needs to be done is to once again be able to have laws against bribery, undue influence, conflicts of interest. Increasingly this corruption is undermining our representative republic. There have been numerous laws regulating money through the years. For example, in Wisconsin from 1911 - 1953, a corporation itself could not contribute in any way to a political campaign.

Some corporations have been attempting to exercise negative free speech rights. These corporations claim they should not be required to tell you what is in their products, and they should not be required to have warning labels. Other corporations are now claiming 4th amendment protection. They seek the right to not be inspected without warrant.

The national Move To Amend organization has a useful FAQ section, if you'd like more information.

http://movetoamend.org/frequently-asked-questions

[eallen]

7. It very much is changing the 1st amendment

The 1st amendment explicitly protects "the press."

That included businesses in the founders' day, not just natural persons. It would be a very strange interpretation of freedom of the press to say that Slate, for example, is not covered by it.

I don't agree with the case law that extends 4th amendment and other protections to corporations. But I very much want free press protections for publishers, newspapers, etc. Corporations, all. And restricting freedom of the press to mean only individuals very much changes the 1st amendment!

[midnight]

8. Wisconsin from 1911 - 1953, a corporation itself could not contribute in any way to a political

campaign-I like this.

[Scuba]

9. Great first post! Welcome to DU WisconsinBrad!!!