Forum Post: Bernie Sanders amendment would *not* overturn Citizens United
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 15, 2012, 9 p.m. EST by LetsGetReal
(1420)
from Grants, NM
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I appreciate his move in the right direction, but this amendment won't do the job. First of all, it applies only to for-profit corporations. The Citizens United organization was a non-profit corporation which would be exempt under this proposed amendment.
http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Saving-American-Democracy.pdf
Secondly, the Sanders proposal does nothing to prevent the act of spending money from being considered free speech.
The amendment proposed by Move to Amend is much better. It specifically states that corporations aren't people, that constitutional rights belong to natural persons only, and that money is not free speech.
http://movetoamend.org/amendment
Be careful which amendment you support. All proposals are not created equal. ; )
TY. Although I love Bernie, I glanced at his pdf and was unimpressed. Glad I'm not alone.
It's gotten to the point we can NOT trust anything "written" in Congress. Either we as OWS must write this or we as individuals lose.
Really, even respected Professors and/or Researchers are all corrupted by the system.
Agreed, not a particularly well written amendment, and I don't think amending the constitution (in this case) is a realistic goal anyway. I think we could accomplish more through legislative reform.
I fear that money now has such a stranglehold on our federal government that meaningful legislative reform is no longer possible until we get the money out. (I would love to be proven wrong about that though.)
Amending the constitution is a massive undertaking, but I am certain it can, and must, be done. The alternative is to continue on this destructive path and that is unacceptable. We can do better.
With you a 1000%. I hope OWS writes the text.
I must completely disagree. We as a people have been tinkering with legislative reform for 200+ years and only now are in the streets.
Amendments happen when Americans take to the streets. It's very rare and ends up being very powerful.
Come spring OWS will reach new levels and we will be offered an Amendment by the next administration. I hope it will be 'public financing' of elections.
But as the post accurately states, Citizens United is a non-profit political organization, so it's not even within the scope of this proposed amendment. Moreover, legislation has been effective in many instances. The Civil Rights Act is a law passed by congress, it was not an amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, even if we passed an amendment codifying the principle that corporations are not persons, it doesn't address the most profound problem (behind closed doors lobbying), which could be addressed through legislation.
As an aside, the concept of corporate personhood goes back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), but it was dicta (and thus not considered law). An earlier decision, Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), recognized corporations as persons with respect to the right to enter into and enforce contracts (but this is not personhood in the context of political spending/advertising).
Here's an excerpt from the decision in Citizens United:
The majority opinion,[19] authored by Justice Kennedy, found that 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)'s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary: The Movie. Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Opinion_of_the_Court
What the Court is saying is that McCain Feingold was overly broad. Indeed, if we passed an amendment making clear that corporations are not persons, not only would it not cover Citizens United (because it's not a for-profit corporation), but it wouldn't even address the Court's reasoning (which was not based on the notion of corporate personhood). In other words, in the context of political spending/advertising, corporate personhood has never been established. So this amendment isn't even effective for accomplishing its stated purpose (it's a smokescreen, diverting our attention from the real problem, behind closed doors dealing). In fact, considering Kennedy's dissenting opinion in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FCC, and his concurrence with the majority (and the fact that he authored the majority opinion in Citizens United), we have to presume that overruling section (b) did not represent a radical shift for the Court, and better crafted legislation could withstand a Constitutional challenge.
ty for your reply francismjenkins :)
The last two paragraphs would best be corrected by an Amendment, I believe. Also, I have come to see Congress as the most corrupt body on the planet. Just 10 years ago RP, Alex Jones and even Lou Dobbs were considered nut-jobs. Now the truth is so absurdly corrupt that they NOW sound sensible more often than not. This means the people must write the verbage of the Amendment.
Yes, Civil Rights is an excellent example of legislation and the National Guard, that truly and thankfully worked. As to "corporations are not persons"; I have to differ to those who better understand the implications of what is needed. And in this case, that is Colbert. Or Colbert/Stewart as it is now. The idea that money equals speech did not work out well for Newt in Iowa shocking some Elephants. By November, the pols themselves might be in the streets just to keep their positions.
This Bernie thing is the ultimate example of a presumed good guy submitting a law that's so hole-ly. Even the good guys can not be trusted to write Amendments.
Yeah, I'm disappointed by the weakness of his proposed amendments' language .... the fact that he never went to law school, unfortunately shines here.
Yeaaa, that could be it lol. But then I have to give 'im props :)