BREAKING NEWS: Congress introduces amendment to overturn Citizens United

[Cal33]

This morning, for the first time, a member of the U.S. Congress is officially introducing our People’s Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is a breakthrough we’ve been working toward since launching our campaign nearly two years ago. Congratulations!

Now is the time to drum up some serious support for it. Please sign on now, then spread the word as widely as you can:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=VhVNPKoFbjqnhyz4veXIK3wWbG%2FWZQLE

Here’s the language of the Amendment, which is virtually identical to the version chosen by more than 90% of respondents in a survey we conducted here at Free Speech For People in May:


Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.





Our hero on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), who introduced the People’s Rights Amendment this morning, is a longtime advocate for social justice and fundamental human rights. He’s also very influential in Washington, where he holds leadership roles, including the second-ranking Democratic slot on the powerful House Rules Committee, the panel that decides which items will be considered for debate in the House. In short, we could hardly have found a stronger champion.

There’s no question that the Occupy Wall Street movement that’s swept the country in the past several weeks has played a huge role in getting us to this point. People are in the streets almost everywhere, calling, among other things, for an end to corporate personhood and to corporate control over our democracy.

Rep. McGovern isn’t the only one in Washington who’s responding to our call. 15 U.S. Senators have co-sponsored another Amendment that would reverse the Citizens United ruling (which held that corporations may spend their general treasury funds, without limit, on election campaigns). And Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) previously introduced a similar Amendment in the House, as we reported a few weeks ago. While these other Amendment bills do not challenge the fabricated claim of corporate rights, they are important steps forward in the fight to restore democracy to the people.

Of course, the real heroes in all of this are you, your friends, and your family -- and everyone else who’s been speaking out tirelessly, demanding a real solution to this problem, a solution that can breathe new life into the basic promise of American self-government: of, for, and by the people.

Please sign on and spread the word right away.

http://j.mp/OurRights

Thanks!

[Raksha]

1. K & R - It's about time!

[arcane1]

2. Signed and kicking!

:kick:

[vcc]

3. that looks like great news...

... and a swift and strong response to what has been asked for most loudly and centrally to the problems. that's awesome to see. Democracy in action, indeed. Even if some don't agree with every word or whatever, the most important thing is people need to know they are being listened to by somebody and that their vote matters. And they need to know FAST before things get violent in the cities with riots, etc. Spread this around as much and as fast as you can. OWS site, HuffPo, FB, keep bringing it up. I suggest titling it "BREAKING NEWS: Congress introduces amendment to overturn Citizens United" to make it very clear and specific at first glance and distinguish it from the endless litany of proposals for bottom-up push for amendment via Con-Con that have been flooding all the sites.

[Cal33]

6. Will do. Thanks, and a hearty welcome to DU.

[sabrina 1]

70. There is no fear of violence in the streets from OWS.

There is, as we have seen, a real fear for their safety now as we all have witnessed, and a need to protect the American People exercising their constitutional rights from the Brutal and criminal attacks that have been launched against them by what are supposed to our Civilian Police. Whoever is responsible for ordering these military-style attacks on American citizens needs to be investigated. And hopefully it will.

I hope our Democratic Representatives will address this very serious threat to the safety of the American people as it has shocked and outraged people all over the world.

But please do not attribute the violence to those who are the victims of this brutality. That is like blaming a woman for being raped. We are not stupid, and I really wish that people in politics, the old DC politics, who have proven themselves to be so removed from the people would either quit or start respecting the intelligence of the American people, which is pretty impressive actually.

This amendment is a good thing, and as the OP says, thank YOU OWS for all you are doing to make these kinds of actions possible now.

[Shining Jack]

83. +1 n/t

[Enthusiast]

87. Plus one!

Nice!

[vcc]

126. where in my comment did I attribute violence to OWS?

It could come from anywhere in huge crowds. It's a risk we'd all like to prevent as much as possible. It's interesting, though, that you framed my post as accusatory. What's that about?

[Zorra]

4. Outstanding! Emailing after I sign on. Thanks!

:bounce:

[Cal33]

Excellent. We need as many members as possible to email their

family and friends in order to help win our cause. And many thanks.

[Cal33]

22. Excellent. We need as many members as possible to email their

family and friends in order to help win our cause. And many thanks.

[socialindependocrat]

5. SCOTUS needs to be slapped for Citizens United

What in the hell were they thinking?

We need a way to give feedback when something stupid like that is put into law.

If they get enough negative feedback they need to reconsider!!!

[Cal33]

8. Sure hope so.

[Initech]

12. Scalia, Alito, and Roberts need to be impeached NOW!

[tblue]

152. You forgot Poland. I mean Thomas.

Him first.

[stillwaiting]

16. They do not give a fuck about what the 99% think. About. Anything.

Increasing their own wealth and the wealth of those they identify with is the only game in their town.

Quaint ideas like the Constitution don't mean jack if the elite want something from them.

Scalia, et al scoff and laugh at our feedback.

The reason we got Citizens United was because of Bush V Gore. We never should have allowed that to stand.

[FunMe]

46. Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are FASCISTS

They need to be impeached for sure. At minimum, the pressure needs to be directed toward them. OWS please expose them for what they are: un-American fascists.

[stillwaiting]

53. So is Thomas and Kennedy is reliable for the Fascist 4 most of the time. nt

[Enthusiast]

89. I have to agree.

Right wing filth.

[Enthusiast]

88. I used to think that too.

"Increasing their own wealth and the wealth of those they identify with is the only game in their town."

I have had to rethink this. I now believe, in addition to the above, they want to do us actual harm or want us to suffer. I have yet to understand the motive for this unless they are trying to emulate the old time Nazis in their cruelty.

[Cal33]

This is normal behavior for people with anti-social personality disorder, or "sociopaths."

They are all like that. Just imagine an Al Capone in a
high government position, and you get the picture. He was
one of them, too. They may have had a better education and
are more socially sophisticated, but that is just the
surface. Underneath, they are still Al Capones.

[Cal33]

94. This is normal behavior for people with anti-social personality disorder, or "sociopaths."

They are all like that. Just imagine an Al Capone in a
high government position, and you get the picture. He was
one of them, too. They may have had a better education and
are more socially sophisticated, but that is just the
surface. Underneath, they are still Al Capones.

[stillwaiting]

101. It's certainly possible.

One possibility that I sometimes reflect on concerns a scenario where the elite in the top most positions of our government fully realize that our planet is well past its carrying capacity and that our current population is a threat to our very planet.

IF that were the case they might think that they could not come right out and tell us that, BUT they certainly would not be interested in extending the life expectancies of the individuals who are currently alive on this planet. Wars, famines, lack of access to basic health care, etc.: None of it would be of ANY concern to the elite in this scenario. They could simply let us die, and they would have completely rationalized these tragedies in their own minds.

Mind you, this conspiracy theory, IF TRUE, would have very few people in the know. Most of the individuals scattered throughout world governments would certainly not know.

It would explain the seeming lack of any concern for the very lives of so many individuals though.

The more likely scenario in my opinion is simple sociopathic greed... :(

Whatever the reason all I can say is: :puke:

There IS a better way. No matter what.

[Raksha]

134. This is exactly what I've believed for a long time .

The psychopathic elite want us to die...through war, inability to protect ourselves from the effects of catastrophic climate change, lack of access to health care. It's their form of population control.

Re "One possibility that I sometimes reflect on concerns a scenario where the elite in the top most positions of our government fully realize that our planet is well past its carrying capacity and that our current population is a threat to our very planet.

"IF that were the case they might think that they could not come right out and tell us that, BUT they certainly would not be interested in extending the life expectancies of the individuals who are currently alive on this planet. Wars, famines, lack of access to basic health care, etc.: None of it would be of ANY concern to the elite in this scenario. They could simply let us die, and they would have completely rationalized these tragedies in their own minds."

If they believe that only a few members of their inner circle are in the know, they are kidding themselves. Anyone can know. You know and I know, and probably half of DU knows. ALL we have to do is look past their words to their actions, and imagine the outcomes if their policies were carried through to their inevitable conclusions.

Re "Mind you, this conspiracy theory, IF TRUE, would have very few people in the know. Most of the individuals scattered throughout world governments would certainly not know.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. I know everyone has a hate-on for Citizens United but...

the SC decision applied equally and fairly to corporations, non-profits (real ones, not the just the fucking swiftboat assholes), and unions.

I can't help but think the latter two categories are worth protecting political speech for, and for the life of me, I can't justify protecting two of those categories, and not all three.

A corporation and a union are indistinguishable in this regard.



So, if we change this, I hope that everyone is expecting and unsurprised that Unions will also be restricted, as Corporations. If everyone is ok with that, then I guess we are good.

[socialindependocrat]

116. I see a difference

The corporation has employees who's top and rank and file have differing goals.

The CEO are just employees and if they have the right to donate
corporate funds then the rank and file should have the same amount
corporate funds to donate to the party of their choice.

However...

The unions get money from union dues and the members expect the union
to donate those funds to benefit the workers and should be allowed to
do so. It's just individual contributions coming from one source.

It would be the same as the union mailing checks back to the members
so that they could each donate separately but still benefit the
workers.

Is my logic off here? Anyone want to add a different perspective?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

7. PROUD to sign! Could just be the most important thing I have ever signed/will ever sign

[livetohike]

9. Signed and shared n/t

[Scuba]

10. I'm no constitution scholar but this doesn't seem to address the issue....

... of money in politics.

It doesn't say corporations can't buy all the political ads they want.

It doesn't say corporations can't donate secret money to campaigns.

If provides no alternative funding for elections.



Anybody?

[Nye Bevan]

36. Agreed. I think the amendment would need to be something like:

The First Amendment to the US Constitution (insofar as it prohibits Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech) does not apply to speech that relates to elections for Federal or State offices, during the 90 days prior to said elections.

If the First Amendment does not apply (90 days prior to an election) then Congress can regulate and restrict election-related speech to its heart's content, during that period.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Those provisions are too specific for a Constitutional amendment

and are better handled through legislation.

If I were writing an amendment, I'd word it something like this:

"The word 'person' in this Constitution and the rights enjoyed by such persons shall be held to refer only to individual human beings and not to any business corporation or other incorporated body."

[jberryhill]

159. So, you can't hold a corporation to a contract, or even sue one, yes?

A corporation cannot own property, or be subjected to any civil or criminal penalties.

All of these things are aspects of personhood.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

166. Says who?

My intention was to limit the provisions of the Bill of Rights to human beings.

Corporations are covered by Anglo-American common law.

[jberryhill]

167. Okay, so

You mean the fifth amendment takings clause will not apply, so the government may take any property of, say, New York Times Inc., Democratic Underground LLC or, say, Planned Parenthood Inc.

Corporate premises can be searched and property seized without a warrant - marijuana dispensaries, for example.

And they cannot obtain jury trials in civil suits.

Do you mean (a) just the first ten amendments (b) all amendments (c) the entire Constitution or (d) federal law across the board?

[Aleric]

120. It does. You have the issues upside down.

Part of the reasoning for Citizens United was a reliance on First Amendment rights. Those rights, all the rights in the Constitution are granted to the "people". Back in the 1800s the courts began to regard corporations as "persons" as a legal convenience. That definition has expanded over time so that now, Corporations are claiming the rights of the people under the constitution while simultaneously arguing that, as corporations, they have more rights than people.

There are a host of ills that can be reigned in by removing personhood status from corporations. One of those ills is poltical financing. Once corporate personhood is removed, corporations have NO rights EXCEPT the rights they are explicitly granted by the states that incorporate them. In contrast, Humans have "certain inalienable rights".

This is recognized in the tenth Amendment;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

In other words, we have rights the Constitution has not enumerated. We are still working out what some of those are. (e.g. privacy)

Right now, corporations are using the peoples' rights to run roughshod over the people.

[Scuba]

130. OK, good. That helps. So the corporations wouldn't be able to ....

... donate to campaigns under the "people" argument. The Citizens United decision would be effectively overturned.

But what's to stop Corporations from their next argument?

What's to stop a small handful of individual billionaires from spending outlandish amounts?


It seems to me that any attempt that does not abolish such spending and provide public funding is going to be like playing "whack-a-mole".


edited for clarity

[Aleric]

133. Granted...

We probably need followup legislation to conclusively eliminate that kind of funding. However, under existing corporate personhood those laws won't hold up. Remove corporate personhood and existing laws are restored to effectiveness. (And we can debate on whether or not those are effective.)

With eliminating corporate personhood, however, we can reign in other abuses as well. With only a funding amendment, corporate personhood persists and with it, those abuses.

So tackling corporate personhood reaches farther and gives the people, through our government, more power back than eliminating funding alone.

[Scuba]

136. But isn't this our big shot? A Constitutional Amendment! ...

... This should be more than a band-aid on a symptom. Do an Amendment and then still have to rely on Congress (!!) to provide follow-up legislation to solve the core problem? Huh???


The problem is money is used to buy our elections. This amendment seems to address a symptom, not the problem.


edited for clarity

[Aleric]

138. No the funding is the symptom

An amendment aimed at funding would be a band-aid because it would allow for other abuses that have come about from corporate personhood. We have given too much power to corporations - they have become a power unto themselves. In the old days the King was the government if and only if the Dukes supported him. We thought we eliminated that arrangement but the Corporations have become the new Dukes. They are more powerful than some of our governments and they have squeezed the people out.

We need more power and authority to regulate and restrain corporations. If we just make a funding amendment, rest assured the corporations will find a way around it. If you want a funding amendment, OK, I can support that too but without an anti-personhood amendment we will be readdressing this problem later.

Better than a corporate funding amendment, IMHO would be public funding for all elections.

[Scuba]

140. I think public funding is a must....

.... or some serious constraint on individual spending, with a total ban on "non-person" spending.


I like a modified version of Lawrence Legget's (?) idea about giving each adult citizen an annual $50 voucher and let them donate as they see fit. In my model, that would be the total sum of election spending in the Country for that year.

In my opinion, any Constitutional Amendment that leaves a single loophole is a mistake.

[Aleric]

142. No law is perfect

There is no law or Consitutional provision that doesn't have a "loophole" somewhere.

[Scuba]

146. Sure, but if we're going to the trouble of a Constitutional Amendment...

... I want it as bulletproof as possible.


The draft Amendment doesn't seem to come close to that.

[Raksha]

135. There used to be limits to the amount of money

that corporations were allowed donate to political campaigns. The Citizens United decision, by ruling that corporations were "persons" entitled to freedom of speech and that money was "speech," effectively removed those limits. That was the intention.

[donquijoterocket]

143. probably

true enough, but even playing whack-a-mole you do whack a mole once in a while and in dealing with this sort of thing it's the tireless effort of continuing to whack moles for as long as you need to that's the most important thing.Everyone knew the powers were not going to give up without a fight but at least now the fight's been declared and can be conducted a little more out in the open. Public funding is, without a doubt, the most desirable end as is single payer but there needs to be a first step and I'd consider this to be that first tentative step.At the very least individual congress critters will be more or less required to show where they stand.

[Scuba]

147. I don't think of Constitutional Amendments as "first steps". n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Do people have the right to form corporations to express a political opinion?

Honest question.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Absolutely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

[socialindependocrat]

75. I would agree if you own the company...

The thing that is out of whack is that in "publicly owned corporations"
the CEO is an employee of the company. Why do they have the right to
take corporate dollars and contribute to a political candidate without
allowing the rank and file to donate an equal amount to the candidate of
their choice? This, to me, is misappropriation of corporate funds.

These dollars should be put back into the company to grow the company and
and benefit the employees.

Each person has one vote. If corps. can funnel large amounts of money into
a campaign it buys the po;itician in order to benefit the business and
make decisions not necessarily for the workers (thus the disparity in wages).

If you benefit the workers, they will keep the business healthy in order to
remain employed and to get benefits and raises but the reverse is not true.
Trickle down does not work. It was an idea that sounded good and would have
worked if the corporate leaders were not so greedy.

It's the same as political systems. I think that they all can work as long as
the leaders don't get greedy and the people choose to live under that particular
government. Case in point: we have people in the U.S. who choose to live in
communes. They have chosen a communist lifestyle. Their group makes it work
because they all know each other personally. We have socialist laws in the
U.S. because we choose to protect our poor and not let them get sick and
die without proper medical care. Hospitals treat them for free and then
the hospital claims the loss on their taxes and "We The People" pay part of
the loss with our taxes. If we want to change that we need to help the poor be
able to afford health insurance but it would be irresponsible to let people die
in the street - even Ron Paul will not go that far.

[Ohio Joe]

13. K&R - nt

[MilesColtrane]

14. Hate to be a wet blanket, but the founders made it extraordinarily difficult...

to amend the Constitution.

By this route, the resolution would have to be approved by the Republican dominated Judiciary Committee, then approved by 2/3rds of the House. (That's all Democrats and 97 Republicans if everyone is voting.)

Same for the Senate.

Only then would it be sent to the individual States, where it must be ratified by 38 states.

This approach might be feasible if we had Democratic supermajorities in both houses of Congress, but until then...?

[Zorra]

15. NWP Occupies the White House for passage of Constitutional Amendment:

and gets the job done.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/political.moveon.org/event/CleanEnergyRally/www.fas.usda.gov/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2261150&mesg_id=2261150

[badtoworse]

19. The Equal Rights Amendment sounded like a great idea. It failed.

[Zorra]

42. But the NWP got the Constitutional Amendment passed, didn't they?

what's your point?

:rofl:

[MilesColtrane]

21. The passage of this amendment is certainly equally worthy.

Maybe some of the OWSers could take a page from the NWM and start camping out where the cash meets the command.

[vcc]

25. and we will have the majorities next year, but this is a great push...

...in the right direction. People will see that their voices are being heard and it will compel them even more to vote.

[rhett o rick]

55. Hard to amend but easy to "interpret". nm

[truedelphi]

73. Your saying it will be difficult is very true.

But all the mooe reason to say, "The sooner we start to work on this, the better."

[Aleric]

121. Then give up.

The Democrats have proven that they can't get anything done even WITH a supermajority. So you might as well give up. Go back to your couch.

Yep, amending the constitution is hard. That's a good thing. Yes, we will need support from the right. Yes, it might take years.

But if that's too hard for you, go home.

[MilesColtrane]

127. LOL

[Pacifist Patriot]

125. I'm glad not everyone who faces difficult procedures throws up their hands in dismay.

Yes, it's a rightfully difficult process. Which means we've got some work to do.

[meow2u3]

17. Kicked, recommended, and signed

:kick:

[DRoseDARs]

18. "natural persons" is rather nebulous. "Test-tube babies" aren't naturally conceived. R they persons?

I can think even further into the future how this might come back to haunt future generations. Although it may seem ridiculous now, clones, sapient AIs, non-Human intelligences (could either mean lifted lower species like dolphins or chimpanzees, or even non-Terrestrial ones even further in the future) would all be subject to the vague wording of "natural persons." Remember, slaves weren't really people, and that stupid notion was ENSHRINED in the US Constitution to start with. Why willfully permit such a scenario to occur again when it's easily avoided by dropping the single word "natural" and be done with it? In the vastness of the universe, Humans have not been, are not, nor will be the only species to have achieved sapience and thus personhood. I refuse to believe God would permit such an intolerable emptiness otherwise.

[NBachers]

43. In jurisprudence, a Natural Person is a human being, as opposed to an artificial, legal, or juristic

Starting with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person

and working down through the Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tab=lw&q=2851%20Falcon%20Drive%2C%20Madera%2C%20CA%2093637#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Natural+Person%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Natural+Person%22&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=se&gs_upl=4425l8533l0l8758l16l16l0l0l0l0l269l2727l1.9.6l16l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=12aa1632b3f2e275&biw=1600&bih=1073

[DRoseDARs]

61. Ah so "natural" is being used in its Legalese form, not in actual English. I guess that's better?

Lawyers. Are. Weird.

[NYC_SKP]

20. K/R for Progress...

[spanone]

23. k&r..

[lib2DaBone]

24. k/r That is good news...

[coffeenap]

26. k and r

Fantastic news!

[mvd]

27. K&R

and signed!

[tcaudilllg]

28. This is all about taking the thunder out of Lessig's convention plans.

It's not about creating change -- it's about stopping it in its tracks.

[vcc]

33. it's about creating the change w/o unnecessary insanity.

[tcaudilllg]

35. Well now

if this guy is not guilty of insider trading, I would call his concerns legit. If he has no ties to the companies he is attacking, I would call his concerns legit. Otherwise... I think it's a distraction.

Not to mention the probability that this movement won't make it past the House. Not this year. Could become a Democratic rallying point for 2012 but Obama... I wonder what side he's on?

[polmaven]

29. Signed,

kicked and recommended!!!

[Cal33]

118. Many thanks.

[eggplant]

30. knr n/t

[flamingdem]

31. k 'n r! nt

[DonCoquixote]

32. FINALLY!!!

I do think the Dems may be feeling for their spine now.

[Nye Bevan]

34. I'm not sure that the proposed amendment quite gets there,

since the First Amendment itself does not mention "people", "person", or "citizen", in the context of abridging the freedom of speech:

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.

I think the wording of the proposed amendment would need to be something like:

The First Amendment to the US Constitution (insofar as it prohibits Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech) does not apply to speech that relates to elections for Federal or State offices, during the 90 days prior to said elections.

[nineteen50]

39. We the people

of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.

[Scuba]

149. Please see my post #10 and subsequent dialog. Thanks.

[freshwest]

38. Awesome news! K & R

[proReality]

40. Signed, kicked & recommended n/t

[Canuckistanian]

41. I hope this becomes a litmus test

For true lovers of democracy and social justice.

It's about time someone shamed the establishment into action.

We'll see how it goes.

[silverweb]

44. Signed and forwarded widely.

K&R

:kick:

[abelenkpe]

45. K & R nt

[lob1]

47. K&R.

[DissedByBush]

48. I can name one corporation

Democratic Underground, LLC

Do be careful about where this could go.

[RB TexLa]

105. And I'm sure labor unions and the DNC would like fourth amendment protection

against random warrentless searches and seizure.

[jberryhill]

168. Fifth Amendment takings clause - the Feds can take any corporate property without compensation

[Aleric]

122. Good.

I see no problem here.

[beac]

49. rec'ed, signed and shared! n/t

[efhmc]

50. Signed.

[kudzu22]

51. It's badly worded

There are holes in it you could drive a truck through. Section 3: "Nothing...shall be construed to limit...freedom of the press". How about if the press is a corporation (New York Times, MSNBC, etc.)? Can Congress dictate what they can publish/broadcast? Can you imagine what the GOP would do with that power if they get control again? If the amendment doesn't limit press corporations, then Citizens United just declares that it is the press and they produce whatever they want, and you're back where you started.

[Firebrand Gary]

63. I disagree.

If by clarifying that the rights of the constitution are rights only given to natural citizens, then in itself corporations are not people and shall not receive rights of the people. Media cannot hide under the guise of "people" when in fact some media is corporately owned.

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable

[jberryhill]

163. So in US v. New York Times Inc.

The government should have been able to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers by that corporation.

I see you moved "freedom of the press" to only extend to natural persons.

[AllyCat]

52. Not sure how this will ever pass through this worthless Congress, but K/R

We have to start somewhere.

[eallen]

54. Why does anyone think this would change Citizens United?

Read the 1st 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...

Now, see. The 1st amendment doesn't reference "people, person, or citizen." It does reference the press. Which means newspapers. Radio stations. Cable networks. The press was a bunch of companies from before the time of the Constitution.

The problem is that people want their favorite newspapers and the ACLU to have 1st amendment freedom of the press. But maybe not Fox or political action committees. The problem is how to draw a legal line between the two. The wrong legal line, on the issue of press freedom, is natural person vs. company. Do you really want to say publishers have no 1st amendment protections? Think about that.

:hippie:

[Aleric]

123. Incorrect

Corporations were RARE. Very rare at the time of the Constitution. All the press were owned by natural persons who could be held liable for their acts. The invention of the coprorate liability shield and corporate personhood now shields those same people from liability for crimes of their companies. (Yes, they can still be held liable thorugh a mechanism called "Piercing the corporate veil" but it is difficult and rare.

This will not eliminate 1st amendment protections for publishers because there are still human beings behind those companies. If there aren't, then yes, they should not have first amendment protections. Commercial speech is the least protected form of speech while political speech is granted the highest protection.

[jberryhill]

161. This country was founded by corporations

"This will not eliminate 1st amendment protections for publishers"

Oh, that's nonsense. I gotta believe nobody actually read what Citizens United was about. Citizens United was about funding and making a political MOVIE. As this was considered an in-kind political contribution, then the question was about how they could fund the production of that movie.

The most important First Amendment cases are things like US v. New York Times Inc..

Your point is that the government had every right to tell the NYT not to publish the Pentagon Papers, because the NYT is a corporation.

Either that or your point is that making a movie is somehow different from publishing a newspaper.


(btw, The Dutch West India Company got shafted by the Pilgrims who didn't make good on their contract.)

[eallen]

165. The press was a business, from a century before the US existed.

You're right, that the companies didn't have modern corporate law. But they still were businesses. <i>Not</i> natural persons.

Are you really suggesting that freedom of the press covers newspapers only if they are organized as, say, partnerships, but not as chapter S corporations? Which would exclude virtually every major paper, from the <i>New York Times</i>, on down?

In any case, if your criterion is how a business is organized, that is different from applying it only to natural persons.

:hippie:

[jberryhill]

160. Citizen's United wanted to make a movie, btw

[femrap]

56. K and R for it's about time.

[defendandprotect]

57. KR --

[Firebrand Gary]

58. Kicked and Recommended. This makes me very HAPPY!

[Oldtimeralso]

59. K & R

and signed

[pam4water]

60. Stares blankly in slacked jawed amazement. Wait which congress? Canada?

[KeyserSoze87]

62. It's fantastic that people in Congress are now trying to repeal this idiotic court decision.

Unfortunately, I don't really know how it can pass. Pretty much every member of the Teabagger House will vote against it.

[bertman]

64. HUGE K & R. nt

[Lugnut]

65. Done! n/t

[SoapBox]

66. K & R

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. The PROGRESSIVE Caucus is listening to the streets.

They are savvy those people are, even if they do not have that much power really.

[The Second Stone]

68. It looks great to me

I certainly hope that it gathers steam. This would be a great issue to build a platform on.

[LiberalAndProud]

71. Well praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

Thank you OWS!

[watajob]

72. I'm amazed!

The goopers haven't brought up the, "Oh, no! Not another McGovern!" shtick yet.

[ClayZ]

74. Done! K and R

[PotatoChip]

76. Done. n/t

[bowens43]

77. Sounds good but it will never happen. nt

[Scruffy1]

100. Even if it did. I doubt it would change a thing.

So corporations will just continue to pay money through pacs and hire more lobbyists and of course use beibes and blackmail. Just look into how Rick Perry got rich. It was legal.

[Dj13Francis]

78. Well,

It's about fucking time.

[stlsaxman]

79. Rec #200!

Will share and call and share and call!

[a kennedy]

80. Signed and spread info to friends.

:patriot:

[sarchasm]

81. K&R !!!

[tclambert]

82. Now pay close attention to who opposes this.

Those will be the enemies of the people.

[WinkyDink]

86. Indeed. And it will matter not which Party.

[Enthusiast]

84. Signed!

I sent the petition to every REASONABLE person in my address book. Some are so unreasonable that I will not even bother. They would have to consult Carl Rove or Glenn Beck to know what to think on this particular issue.

[WinkyDink]

85. The SCOTUS, yet again, broke the law, to wit: NOTHING in the Constitution can be construed to equate

"people" and "corporations."

Were corporations ever 3/5 of a citizen? No; PEOPLE were.

Did corporations ever worship? No; PEOPLE did and do.

Can corporations vote? No; but now all discrete citizens can.

Were corporations ever prohibited from drinking alcohol? No; PEOPLE were.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Enthusiast]

91. Plus one!

Nice post.

[eallen]

104. Again, the 1st amendment was written to protect "the press" as well.

It wasn't the Supreme Court who put "the press" into the 1st amendment. That was done by Madison.

A lot of people aren't thinking about this. Newspapers aren't natural persons. They are companies. Businesses. Do you want them protected by the 1st amendment or not?

If the answer is "yes," then whatever dividing line you want to draw about who gets 1st amendment protection cannot be natural person vs. corporation. It has to be something else.

:hippie:

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Replace 'corporation' with 'union'

and then re-evaluate the implication of purchasing political speech/airtime/lobbying within the context of that ruling.

A union is an assocation of people. So is a corporation.

What would you have had the supreme court do, to protect Unions and Non-Profits political speech, and not Corporations?


I think it is critical that unions be allowed to lobby, buy ads, and support candidates with poltical speech, just as individuals, because after all, a union is a free association of individuals.

But so is a corporation. So I don't know where do draw the line. Do you?

[Aleric]

131. You're missing the point.

What makes a corporation different from a person (or people) is the "corporate liability shield". With that shield, people can take actions as their corporations and not be held liable for their actions.

A sole proprietorship is not a corporation. The owner is personally liable for any and all actions taken by that company. All assets are owned by the human behind it. The human is liable for all debts and criminal actions.
A partnership is not a corporation. All partners share liability for actions of the company. They share in ownership of assets and liability for debts.

A corporation or Limited Liability Corporation on the other hand, shields the owner from liability. The company, not the person owns the assets. If the company goes bankrupt, the owner is shielded from those debts. He only loses his actual investment. If the company engages in criminal activity, the owner can be shielded from that, too. This is why companies like Enron and Fox get away with what they get away with.

A Union IS a corporation, albeit a non-profit corporation. (Perhaps a cooperative corporation). As such, it should not have more rights than the people who make it up. If a single person is allowed to donate $2200, then 100 people, together, should not be allowed to spend more than $2200x100 = $220,000. And all that money should be recorded. Humans should be able to shield massive donations behind a chain of corporate facades as they do now.

So, yes, undoing corporate personhood is still a good thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. That makes sense.

Thank you.

[SpiralHawk]

90. Yes

k and r

[Laelth]

92. Done. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[and-justice-for-all]

93. One of the most fucked up rulings in American history...nt

[yellerpup]

95. Signed last night.

:kick: & Rec.

[rbnyc]

96. This is bad news for androids.

I hate to be taking rights away from the Datas of the future.



Just kidding. I signed and shared.

We'll have to amend it again for Data later.

[CanonRay]

97. We finally start to undo this monstrous wrong

Keep this message simple...the forces of darkness will really fight this one.

[TBF]

98. You bet I'll sign that! K&R nt

[Capt. America]

99. I'm certain that Congress and the Media will get right on this.

[Hun Joro]

102. K&R

[Maineman]

103. This is good, but we need more, like the following (one overlaps):

1. A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON:

“Constitutional rights and protections as provided herein extend only to natural persons, not to business entities, trade groups, corporations, or governments. Persons representing or advocating for the interests of entities and organizations must clearly identify themselves as such, and all such communication must occur in a public forum.”

2. MONEY IS NOT SPEECH, LYING IS NOT PROTECTED:

“Constitutionally protected speech is auditory or visual messages that are intended to be an accurate reflection of ideas, facts, or artistic expression. Deceit or intentional misrepresentation, whether or not recognized by human sensory mechanisms, whether put forth by persons, entities, or governments or their representatives is not protected speech. No form of money or barter is protected speech.”

3. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS:

“All campaign and campaign related expense for public office, whether for federal office or elected office in any of the several states, shall be paid from public funds fairly distributed to viable candidates. No candidate or campaign shall accept donations or spend personal funds for or on behalf of his or her campaign.”

4. FORCE THE SENATE TO FUNCTION:

“If three-fifths of the House of Representatives conclude that the Senate is unable to function effectively or to carry out its constitutional duties, all members of the Senate shall immediately be subject to recall elections. Such elections shall be held no sooner than 90 days and no later than 120 days from the date of recall.”

5. FAIR VOTING, STOP GERRYMANDERING:

“States may not consider political affiliation, socioeconomic circumstances, or religious preferences when determining representation and voting districts for members of the House of Representatives. All existing districts shall be redrawn within one year of final passage of this amendment. Allotted time and facilities for voting shall be equally and fairly distributed. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday weekend for the purpose of voting on federal candidates.”

6. DISCONTINUE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

“Henceforth, the President and Vice President of the United State of America shall be elected by popular vote of the people, each citizen having one vote.”

[Maineman]

106. Why is this country so screwed up? Because...

the governments are owned and operated by profiteering corporations and a handful of radical billionaires, and are heavily influenced by irrational ideological wingnuts. And, too many gullible, uninformed voters fall victim to the clever and highly skilled manipulators of public opinion.

[MoonRiver]

107. WOOHOO!!

:woohoo:

[bighart]

110. Signed

link sent to friends

[HopeHoops]

111. Short, sweet, clear, and to the point.

[valerief]

112. I'm sure this will be shelved by Boehner and ignored by the fascist press. nt

[ck4829]

113. K&R

[lordsummerisle]

114. k&r n/t

[dorksied]

115. Signed, posted on FB, emailed to friends! And a HUGE K and R!

[avaistheone1]

117. Signed and strongly recommended

:kick:

[mnhtnbb]

119. K & R and signed. Hoo-hah!

[Locrian]

124. people ! = property and thus property ! = people

Seems like it's never been a good idea to equate people and property. Last time we had that didn't we have slavery?


I guess either way you cut it, it always does result in slavery....

[Cal33]

129. Excellent point!

[hifiguy]

128. This should be re-introduced in every session of Congress

until it passes. Period.

[FredStembottom]

132. Such beautiful words.

So simple.
Well done.
:patriot:

[Plucketeer]

137. SUPER-fantastic!!!

Kay'n 'n Are'n to the MAX!

[FailureToCommunicate]

139. Finally!

One small step for 'people'

[JNelson6563]

141. K&R

:toast:

[FunMe]

145. Police Raid right now Thursday in NYC Liberty Park

Police have stopped people from going in or out of the park and have batons. They are planning to arrest protesters once again when no park rules are broken. Disgusting!

http://www.ustream.tv/TheOther99

This will continue to grow the movement even more.

[Gin Blossom]

148. Signed. n/t

[libodem]

150. I'm so sick of being jerked around

Hoping any justice will ever happen to the 1% I can't care, yet.

[azul]

151. Progress, yes

Corporations have slipped the human tether and become the legal and financial masters.

Eliminating the fiction of corporate personhood is the key to reform this financial and political mess that these special interests have wrought.

The courts have gone too far in CN and require better oversight or reform themselves. A constitutional amendment is the only response left because the supreme court has finally come out in the open regarding corporate rights.

This is a really good next step.

[raouldukelives]

153. K&R

[onehandle]

154. K&R, but lotsa luck unless we regain a firm majority in both houses. nt

[Cal33]

170. As someone said in a msg. above, "This should be re-introduced in every session of congress, until

it passes. Period." :)

[Bozita]

155. K&R ... Bigtime!

[Uncle Joe]

156. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cal.

[Cal33]

169. Thank you, Uncle Joe. You're always dependable.

[unapatriciated]

157. signed kicked and recommended

[ZombieHorde]

158. Done. nt

[The Last Democrat]

162. Ok !

Good deal. 

[Duval]

164. WE can hope and pray, but we must

continue fighting! It is viscerally pleasurable seeing us all in the streets again! Go, everybody!! :bounce: :toast: :kick: :grouphug: