Boulder Question 2H: 'Corporate personhood' referendum passes by wide margin

[kag]

Source: Boulder Daily Camera

A Boulder measure that counters the idea that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals -- a concept referred to as "corporate personhood" -- scored an easy win Tuesday night.

Question 2H, which pushes for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would guarantee that only people are entitled to constitutional rights, won the vote by a nearly 3-to-1 margin. According to the final 12:55 a.m. tally, 18,392 voted in favor and 6,556 voted against.

Read more: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_19242188

---

As Buffy the Vampire Slayer said, "Does the word 'Duh' mean anything to you?"

[valerief]

1. ONLY a 3 to 1 margin? Gee, those secret software electronic voting machines must not have been

able to flip votes fast enough.

Of course, I'm glad it passed. Not sure anything will come of it in this plutocracy.

[Township75]

2. So what is the next step?

"Question 2H, which pushes for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution "

what happens now that Boulder said that only people should have constitutional rights?

[The Doctor.]

7. State an occupy objective; "Put Corporate Personhood to a Vote".

On every ballot in every municipality and in every state election. Pass the amendment that only gives physical persons rights, not metaphysical persons.

[66 dmhlt]

53. Even quicker: If corporations are people, then I say, "PAPERS, PLEASE!"

If Romney claims, and SCOTUS seems to agree, that “Corporations are people, my friend” – then I say, “Papers, Please!”
I demand to see the Long Form, Certified Copy of the Birth Certificate.
And if you’re not a domestic corporation, then I demand to see your Naturalization or Immigration Papers.
No papers?
Call the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and prosecute the lot of them, seize the assets that they’ve accumulated during their illegal stay and deport their illegal asses
No papers? Then get the hell out of my country!

[No Elephants]

66. I don't think occupy should state specific objectives, beside reducing economic disparity.

If they did, there would be disagreement over every issue and its exact wording.

Legislators and bureaucrats know what was been done to create the disparity. Let them work out the specifics.

It's their expertise and their day job. They have staffs and lawyers, too.

[rfranklin]

25. We need to start a national movement to amend the Constitution...

That is the only way to stop the corporate corruption that buys off the SCOTUS.

[leftyohiolib]

29. MOVE TO AMEND. ORG -- MOVETOAMEND.ORG

[SkyDaddy7]

41. Thanks! I signed the petition!! nt.

[BrendaBrick]

56. So have I

http://movetoamend.org/node/2325

By the way, whatever happened to that possoble loophole? about the recurse (spelling?) on Olbermann some weeks ago? Anyone know?

[YvonneCa]

80. It's started...

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFDGEASxYHI

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/01/8583985-democrats-seek-broader-congressional-powers-to-regulate-campaign-money

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/02/1032495/-Six-Dem-Senators-Introduce-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Overturn-Citizens-United?via=recent

[xxqqqzme]

28. More states HAVE

to put this on the ballot. If enough individual states do it - 35? 37? it becomes an amendment to the constitution. I would imagine before states do it, Congress would get the drift and do it.

This is the perfect WEDGE issue for Democrats to use. Corporate America will NOT be promoting this and will, probably, spend millions trying to defeat it.

Get a clue DNC!

[sdfernando]

47. Constitutional Amendments are VERY difficult to get passed!

Even more so with the make up of Congress now. In order to become a constitutional amendment, the bill but pass BOTH the Senate and the House of Representatives by a 2/3 margin. Then the proposed amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states (that is 38 of 50 states). State ratification is done by the each state's legislature, not by popular vote....and I believe there is a 10-year limit for state ratification.

[No Elephants]

67. I do not think there is a limit, unless Congress puts one into the amendment bill.

Many old amendment proposals are still floating around, like the ERA from the 1970s.

And the amendment that protects Congress from a decreas in compensation took something like 200 years to be ratified.

[NYC Liberal]

72. Or 2/3 of the states can force a Constitutional convention,

to propose amendments, which is what I would support here.

Any amendments proposed by the convention, of course, still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

[No Elephants]

74. Yes, but that does not make it easier to get an amendment passed.

You still have to get our frickin' Congress to behave like patriotic adults, then get 75% of states to ignore propaganda and vote with their brains, instead of on the basis of TV ads and loony rhetoric.

[NYC Liberal]

88. Well, you don't actually need Congress in that case.

It's done purely by the states.

What I'm wondering is: because many states allow ballot initiatives, referenda, etc., could those be used to bypass the state legislatures to vote to call a convention and/or ratify an amendment?

[No Elephants]

69. I think the procedure is more complicated than that.

[Slit Skirt]

60. we are moving it to the state level

[avaistheone1]

3. k&r

:kick:

[socialindependocrat]

4. What does this say about the Supreme Court?

If state after state votes on the same kind of ruling

AND we see that the vast majority of people all agree that
corporations are not people....

What does this say about the Supreme Court?
Are they bought?

What needs to be done to get them to make ruling based on the law?

[pasto76]

9. has nothing to do with how many states vote on something

because by that criteria, a lot of crazy shit is OK. But people are stupid.

It's just simple: a Corporation is not a person.

[valerief]

16. Remember back when persons had to be human? I suppose SCOTUS will next

declare corporations to be human.

[hack89]

90. Limited corporate personhood is necessary

don't forget that the initial cases that established personhood dealt with the notion that corporations as an entity can be held accountable under the law - i.e. that they can be treated as a person and taken to court and be punished. Personhood also allows corporations to as an entity to sign legally binding contracts.

I agree that the courts have extended the first amendment aspect of it way further than it belongs but there are some aspects of corporate personhood that actually benefit you so it is important to be smart in how you bring about change.

[valerief]

15. As long as the Supreme Court can be bought, they'll do what they're paid to do.

That's whatever their fascist masters want.

[The Wizard]

20. And as long as there are

secret off shore accounts democracy is nothing more than an auction with the laws going to the highest bidders. George Carlin was right.

[valerief]

24. Yep. Cuz making rich people richer is the most important thing in the world.

Everything is driven off that. Anyone who says differently isn't paying attention.

[Plucketeer]

39. Perzactly! nt

[No Elephants]

68. It says that a Constitutional amendment can overrule the SCOTUS.

[Hotler]

5. k&r

[Lost-in-FL]

6. The GOP cyber operatives at full force in the comment section.

Wow!

[The Doctor.]

12. They couldn't pay me to be that deliberately ignorant.

I really wonder if any of them aren't operatives.

[Lost-in-FL]

64. +1. You have a point there.

:hi:

[AlecBGreen]

8. Im not familiar with Colorado

Is Boulder a liberal area?

[Abin Sur]

10. That would be a big "yes".

I've heard it called "Berkeley East".

[NV Whino]

11. Bolder is

It's a college town. The rest of CO, not so much.

[kag]

13. Boulder is quite liberal...

but as you can see in the comment section, the crazy right wingers and libertarians are loud and proud around here. I actually live in the foothills above boulder in a little town called Nederland, and we're even more liberal than Boulder up here. We're the pot-smoking hippie throw-backs to the sixties.

[StandingInLeftField]

14. I want to move to Nederland!

:hippie: :hi:

[kag]

17. Sure!

Come on out! We'd love to have you. Of course, you have to check your tie at the town limits. It's the law. ;) :toast: :hi:

[StandingInLeftField]

18. That's cool!

I've only worn a tie once in the last year....and that was under protest!

The band I worked for used to play in CO a lot. The Tinsley Ellis band out of Atlanta. We used to play a blues bar right up the hill from you; can't remember the name though. Across from Pike's Peak.

[kag]

23. I think my husband owns a tie...

But I honestly can't remember the last time he wore one. Might have been our wedding 20+ years ago. Of course, if he tried it I might file for divorce:)

Musicians are ALWAYS welcome in Ned. Especially good ones. We've got a pretty lively music scene up here.

Pike's Peak is a little to the south. That's Colorado Springs territory, and you DON'T want to live there. Home of Focus on the Family, and home to the craziest of the crazy right wing nuts. Ever hear of Tom Tancredo? Also, I just read the Scott Walker was born there. :scared: :scared:

[StandingInLeftField]

34. Yikes!

You're right; I WOULDN'T do well there!

Lol @ Colo Springs thinking it was Boulder. Sometimes it's hard being an old pot-smoking Hippie! ;)

[AllyCat]

57. I lived in C. Springs and kag is right...crazy freakin' people there.

when I went to school there, the town had the 4th highest assault rate in the nation. Churches everywhere, few jobs, lots of strip joints, and really right wing. The letters to the editor of the papers were really out there and I was a lot more middle-of-the-road politically than I am now.

[Ship of Fools]

35. Could you save me a seat up there? :)

[dragonlady]

22. Working-class suburb of Milwaukee seems to like this too

Some wonderful people have been collecting signatures to put a referendum on the ballot in West Allis in support of an amendment against the principle of Citizens United. They are wrapping up their campaign now and have found that 80% of the people they approach are signing the petition.

[AllyCat]

58. We did one in Dane County this past election too...I think...

that whole election was so horrible I might have dreamed it up to make myself feel better.

[alc]

19. anyone have more specifics

"personhood" includes a lot more than free speech.

only people are entitled to constitutional rights

Can the government perform search and/or seizure of a corporation's or union's assets any time it wants without court order? Shut down a domain name? empty a bank account? Expose proprietary methods or details on unreleased products?

How does it apply to state laws? Can a corporation sue or be sued as before? Do all laws still apply to both individuals and corporations? Or do they need separate versions of the laws or additional wording added? If all "personhood" is denied, there are significant problems in this area.

It sounds like it's just constitutional rights, so laws still apply. But can corporations be compelled to testify against themselves in court. Do they get a speedy trial or the right to know what charges are? Or can a union's assets be froze pending trial with no charges explained and no trial scheduled?

[FreedomVoice]

33. Very good legal points

It will effect small business owners or anyone that has "Inc"d themselves. Do they loose all protection from lawsuits? Can the company stand as the defendant or will you be suing the owner now directly (personally). There seems to be a lot of confusion on this and how laws will effect these entities moving forward.

[No Elephants]

78. I guess one poster's legal points can seem like another poster's talking points.

Things strike different people differently. That's what makes a horse race. Or, so they say.

Either way, the issue can be addressed much less radically and much more rationally than by making corporations people for all purposes and making money speech.

Belated welcome to DU.

[No Elephants]

70. You do not have to say a corporation is a person for all that.

For one example, you can say simply, "Corporations can sue and be sued."

These things came about originally because of how laws (including court made laws) were worded.

They might have said something like "Any person can sue or be sued." (Probably not that exact wording.) So, if someone sued a corporation, a court would say something like, "A corporation is a person for purposes of suing and being sued."


I agree it is not as simple as most DUers seem to think, but it does not have to be as convoluted as it has been, either.

State legislatures need to do some thinking, maybe the American Bar Association. They should start now.

[droidamus2]

21. How about this

The idiot cons say 'personhood' starts at fertilization. Uh, when exactly is it that corporations went through the act of 'fertilization' and exactly who were the two 'persons' involved in this act?

[No Elephants]

71. First official meeting of the incorporators, as shown by the minutes in the corporate minute book?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. Is this going to affect unions? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Since most unions are incorporated, I would think it would impact them the same.

[alc]

32. the summary I read said it does affect unions

"personhood" includes
* the right to sue
* the right to not have your assets seized
* the potential to be sued (not all union actions are necessarily in the best interest of workers)
* the right to get permits to gather (in public places that wouldn't otherwise allow it)

It really includes the right to exist. If a state decides not to issue licenses to operate in the state and seizes assets any time you try to operate then you can't exist there. And without personhood the union doesn't have any rights that have been violated or standing to sue even if there are rights that have been violated.

We really don't have a personhood issue - it greatly simplifies our legal and court systems. We have a campaign finance issue that people have blown out of proportion. There are issues beyond campaign finance. There are people who know the issues and are against personhood - that's fine as long as they know what they're talking about and not overreacting to a campaign finance issue.

[RC]

45. No other country has corporate personhood. Just US. Things work just fine for them.

[Sgent]

46. I'm not sure

what aspect of "corporate personhood" your referring to. Certainly most western countries have limited liability entities who have ownership rights, the right to be sued and sue, access to equability under law, etc.

[RC]

63. Read this to get your education started.

Corporate personhood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

And

Most often they are not, though I stand corrected when it comes to Australia. My own experience in Europe is that judical review of primary legislation is extremely rare, and certainly does not match the scope of what happens in the US. Certainly European supreme courts do not tend to discover new rights. This means that a court in most European countries would never come to the conclusion that a corporation had certain rights as a person.
posted by atrazine at 4:41 AM on January 24, 2010
http://ask.metafilter.com/143941/corporate-personhood-around-the-world


What did the Founding Fathers really think about corporations and their rights?
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/01/22/what-did-the-founding-fathers-really-think-about-corporations-and-their-rights/

A couple months ago the Supreme Court ruled that restricting corporate political spending amounted to restricting free speech. In this view, corporations are pretty much equivalent to people. Would that have seemed reasonable to the Founding Fathers?

In a word, no.
http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/04/what-the-founding-fathers-real.html


As I said before, we are the only country with this corporate person problem.
Most of the other stuff posted in the thread is nothing but distraction from the real issues.

[No Elephants]

73. Comparing Europe with the U.S. in not necessarily useful. The U.S. is a common law

nation (with the possibly exception of Louisiana as to state law).

Always has been, including when Article III of the Constitution was written.

Many European nations are civil code nations.

And even other common law countries, like the UK, are not living under our Article III or our long (for the U.S.) history of judicial review and our particular system of checks and balances among three theoretically co-equal branches.

I don't think we need to throw out the baby with the bath water in order to deal with one single legal issue.

As hard as it is to pass a constitutional amendment, changing our entire system of government would be a lot harder.

I am not sure we should even try. Might be way too dangerous anymore.

[No Elephants]

76. I'd love a link to the summary that you read.

BTW: very, very, very belated welcome to DU.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. No, because it is nonbinding

[No Elephants]

75. If it ever actually becomes a constitutional amendment, without making any exceptions, yes.

I don't think you are going to get an amendment passed that exempts unions, though.

Thanks to the evisceration of unions and the overwhelming fattening of corporations, though, I think corporate money is a bigger concern for the left these days than losing union money.

We should try to keep union support, though. They are one of our few remaining blocs.

[valerief]

27. Yet amazingly only the votes from corporations matter, not votes from citizens. nt

[No Elephants]

77. That's because corporations use the right voting machines.

ATMs.

[greiner3]

30. Be careful with this;

Pro-lifers may use just such a poly, if not piggybacking on this idea, to come up with the way to circumvent Roe vs. Wade; life begins at conception.

However, medically speaking, any mammalian fetus is termed an 'obligate parasite.' This meaning may end when a fetus is viable outside the mother. Let the combatants choose their weapons.

[SoapBox]

36. K & R

[cui bono]

37. Shouldn't they pass Answers instead of Questions?

:shrug:

[davidwparker]

38. K&R

Good. Make sure the wording for the amendment is simple enough for Roberts and Alito to understand.

[Gin Blossom]

40. This is good to see this morning, as pretty much everything/person I voted for here in Denver

got defeated. I don't understand the purpose of the "not sure anything will come of it" response - you could say that for voting itself. Or the Occupy movement. Only try if you're "sure something will come of it"? To me that sounds like the Dem establishment M.O. - "We don't try to do anything unless we have the votes for it".

I agree this is a perfect wedge issue - it's a more compelling narrative than "reform campaign finance laws". This is where Rethug's excel and win votes - simplistic narratives - and why I think Occupy's 99% vs. 1% meme is so effective. It changes the political conversation. If more cities follow the lead of the "People's Republic of Boulder", I think this helps lay the groundwork for eventually confronting the Supreme Court's "$$$ = Speech" decision.

Colorado Springs to the south of Denver is the right-wing evil twin of Boulder to the north, but has Manitou Springs to the west in the foothills, which is a creative/progressive enclave.

[RC]

43. Article. V

Article. V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Robb]

44. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5045212&mesg_id=5045212

[gussmith]

48. People

Yes, only people are people. No one listens to me, but this issue keeps coming up, so there is hope. Any incorporation rights to citizenship give the owners of stock double votes - votes as a citizen and votes in the corporation. Plus stock may be owned by person of any nationality thus we get foreigners involved in our national institutions.

[Enthusiast]

49. Kicked and recommended! nt

[saras]

50. Step 2 - convert more cities. Step 3 - when you have enough cities, convert a state

Step 4 - convert more states
Step 5 - when you have enough states, call a constitutional convention.

yeah, I know, between the teat party and Wall Street it's like trying to make an angel food cake in a public bathroom in Mexico city, but still, it's what needs to happen, approximately in order.

PS: No, teat party isn't a typo. I like it.

[Bill USA]

51. except of course corporations are not the same as unions. In a union every member gets one vote.

That is, it is an organization of members with equal voting power. A corporation is in no way similar to that. The ownership and control of a corporation is based on how many shares of stock you own. Each share of stock is one vote. So a few people, or corporations, can control who sits on the board of directors and thus who becomes the CEO of the corporation. The employees of the corporation don't have any say in how the corporate policies unless they own stock in the corporation. Only to the extent they own shares in the corporation do they have any say in the corporations policies.

Associations of people such as a union where each member has as much say as any other member, in establishing the policies of the union. Businessmen can join an association of businessmen where each member has equal say in the policies of that assiciation. THis is like unions, it is nothing like a corporation.

Corporations should NOT be treated as equivalent to associations of individuals (i.e. people) whether unions or associations of businessmen, or doctors or teachers, for example - insofar as contributing to campaign funds or PACs.

[Fire Walk With Me]

52. Happy 111th Recommendation :)

[toopers]

54. So, does this mean that unions are not people also?

EOM

[No Elephants]

81. You may want to read the thread.

[jberryhill]

55. The Government Should Have Shut The New York Times Co. DOWN When The Pentagon Papers Were Published

New York Times Co. v. United States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

"The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of the New York Times' to print the materials."

Yeah, screw that corporation claiming a First Amendment right!

[scarletwoman]

59. The First Amendment protects freedom of the Press - the NYT is the Press.

That ruling had absolutely NOTHING to do with corporate personhood.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (my bold & underline)

Your post is absurd.

sw

[hansberrym]

61. So 1A protects corporations and not people? That is absurd.

The only thing worse than the majority opinion in Citizens United was the minority opinion.

[scarletwoman]

62. What part of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" do you not get?

Are you being deliberately dense? I quoted the entire Amendment as written. Do you see anything in the First Amendment that refers to corporations?

The ruling for the New York Times in the case of the Pentagon Papers was a ruling based on the First Amendment protection of the PRESS.

As I said above, it had NOTHING to do with the NYT being a corporation, it had to do with it the NYT being the PRESS.

[hansberrym]

89. Why do you think the "press" referred to in 1A is the NYT?

The NYT is a corporation. From your post it is clear that you believe at least one corporation has rights, so why not all coporations? Does Congress get to say which is the "press" and which is not?

Is not the "freedom of the press" a freedom to publish one's own views which is possessed by all of the people? Or are you saying that the Freedom of the press is something possessed only by a subset of the people who are recognized by Congress as "the press"? Does Congress get to say who is the "press" and who is not?


Below is a Footnote from Scalia's concurring opinion which sums up why I say the only thing worse than the majority opinion was the minority opinion.

The dissent seeks to avoid this conclusion (and to turn a liability into an asset) by interpreting the Freedom of the Press Clause to refer to the institutional press (thus demonstrating, according to the dissent,that the Founders “did draw distinctions—explicit distinctions— between types of ‘speakers,’ or speech outlets or forms ”). Post, at 40 and n. 57. It is passing strange to interpret the phrase “the freedom ofspeech, or of the press” to mean, not everyone’s right to speak or pub-lish, but rather everyone’s right to speak or the institutional press’sright to publish. No one thought that is what it meant. Patriot Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary contains, under the word “press,” the follow-ing entry: “Liberty of the press, in civil policy, is the free right of publishing books, pamphlets, or papers without previous restraint; or the unre-strained right which every citizen enjoys of publishing his thoughts and opinions, subject only to punishment for publishing what is pernicious to morals or to the peace of the state.” 2 American Dictionary of theEnglish Language (1828) (reprinted 1970). As the Court’s opinion describes, ante, at 36, our jurisprudenceagrees with Noah Webster and contradicts the dissent. “The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodi-cals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historical connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 452 (1938).

[jberryhill]

85. Yeah, and the Koch Bros. own a Xerox machine

[No Elephants]

82. As a lawyer, you know better than that. Freedom of the Press is a separate clause.

[jberryhill]

86. The NYT is still a corporation. What was Citizens United doing?

Citizens United was making a film.

[orbitalman]

65. Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ! n/t

[midnight]

79. K&R

[No Elephants]

83. I imagine threads about Citizens may attract many new and/or very infrequesnt posters, some

with pure motives and some maybe some with less pure motives, as well as some posters who seem to lean more Libertarian than left.

Not questioning anyone specific, just saying DUers may need to be wary about any subject when a lot of money is behind it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

84. derp.

[tavalon]

87. Boulder is a good and human place

I hope that spreads to the rest of this fucked up country.