Time to start the process of a Constitutional Amendment to ban corporate money from campaigns

How about a constitutional amendment . . . (0.00 / 0)

that specifies that corporations are not citizens and therefore do not deserve "the right to free speech" - which, in this case, equals money to promote the issues of their choice.  Think about it - why do corporations get to have all the rights of citizens?  Will they soon get to vote?  If they commit crimes can we confine them to prison?  If the crime is murder, can they get the death penalty?  

I could even accept the decision IF it included strict, enforceable, and timely reporting of all the money each corporation spent on each issue that is available to the public on an easily accessible government website.  

Meanwhile, unions and progressive associations should use this to the fullest to fight back.  Because the money advantage will be on the corporate side, organizations will have to hold their fire until they see the whites of their eyes.

Keep your eyes on the prize and don't believe the lies!

---

by: Jan A @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:04:26 AM CST

End Corporate Personhood Now. . . (0.00 / 0)

Common Dreams

Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For All
Outrageous SCOTUS Decision Should Reignite Most Necessary of Debates
by Ralph Nader

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.

This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow "King Corporation" and restore the sovereignty of "We the People"!

 

Keep your eyes on the prize and don't believe the lies!

---

by: Jan A @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:30:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I honestly see no other way to stop this than by initiating a constitutional (0.00 / 0)

amendment banning all of this.

The last time organized groups attempted amending the Constitution was the battle for the Equal Rights Amendment.

It's a long drawn  out process because it is the State Legislatures that must approve the Amendment and I'm so rusty on my info I don't even know whether it must pass the State Legislatures with a simple majority or 2/3 vote in each state and THEN I think it has to pass by 2/3 of the states as a whole  as well.

But we must begin because democracy itself is threatened.

I am too informed to be a Republican

---

by: Susan H @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 13:04:50 PM CST

Proposed amendment from newly formed group (0.00 / 0)

called Free Speech For People

Amendment XXVIII
Section 1    The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, no corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation shall enjoy the rights of free speech and expression protected for the people by the First Amendment.

Section 2   Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity in public election activity.

Section 3.  Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Keep your eyes on the prize and don't believe the lies!

---

by: Jan A @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 15:09:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sign me up! I'm on board to push this with every politician I know (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for finding it!

I am too informed to be a Republican

---

by: Susan H @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 17:26:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There may be some other ways . . . (0.00 / 0)

The Constitutional Amendment route is long and hard, giving corporations a lot of time to purchase the entire Congress.

Barney Frank talked about some alternatives on the Rachel Maddow Show last night.

According to Frank, his House committee on finance has jurisdiction over corporate law and the power to regulate the behavior of corporations. He claims that they can impose restrictions on corporations by statutes, not specifically targeting campaign contributions, but that would have the effect of placing constraints on how corporations might influence the electoral process.

There are also a series of legislative bills that Alan Grayson is presenting that would have the same effects.  (See end of post)

Persoanlly, I would like see some legislation allotting more funding to public broadcasting so they don't have to rely on for-profit corporate sponsorship and legislation requiring the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the influence of wealthy candidates and groups in the electronic media.

Here are the bills that Congressman Grayson has introduced, and what they aim to accomplish:

1)  The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431):  Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
2)  The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435):  Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
3)  The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434):  Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
4)  The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432):  Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
5)  The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433):  Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.  

Keep your eyes on the prize and don't believe the lies!

---

by: Jan A @ Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:06:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Can't we have both? (0.00 / 0)

I think it would be a good idea to go ahead with Barney Frank's ideas and Alan Grayson's Bills and while the court is tied up with corporations trying to get all of this legislation overturned, we get the Amendment in through the back door.

I wonder how our patriotic republican pals are feeling about Hugo Chavez's Citgo buying US politicians? Bet Robert's never thought of that...

You can't claim to be for peace unless you're willing to disturb it.

---

by: LiberalAlice @ Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 21:09:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've been seeing this coming for a long time . . . (0.00 / 0)

and that's why possible Supreme Court appointments have always been the number one focus in my choice for president and why I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate.

Here's an article related to this issue entitled "Money Talks" that I wrote back in 2002.

Keep your eyes on the prize and don't believe the lies!

---

by: Jan A @ Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:14:29 AM CST

This ain't over yet . . . new case coming to prevent disclosure (0.00 / 0)

Thanks to Land Shark at Democratic Underground for this find in the NY Times:
A Quest to End Spending Rules for Campaigns

"We had a 10-year plan to take all this down," he (James Bopp) said in an interview. "And if we do it right, I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law."

"We have been awfully successful," he added, "and we are not done yet."

The Citizens United case "was really Jim's brainchild," said Richard L. Hasen, an expert on election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"He has manufactured these cases to present certain questions to the Supreme Court in a certain order and achieve a certain result," Mr. Hasen said. "He is a litigation machine."

The same week the court issued its ruling, it agreed to hear Mr. Bopp's next appeal: seeking to prevent the public release of the names of people who signed a Washington State petition opposing same-sex marriage, on the ground that gay rights supporters might harass them.

Corporations with no contribution caps, no disclosure, no regulation . . . no democracy.


Keep your eyes on the prize and don't believe the lies!

---

by: Jan A @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 16:19:05 PM CST