Does Your Governor Know How You Feel?
In advance of the 2012 U.S. elections, the Koch brothers and other supporters of the status quo in energy policy are spending $1 billion to throw dirt at those with more progressive ideas. That’s more than John McCain and Barack Obama spent combined in 2008—and that election shattered records.
If you think that’s obscene, as do I, you join 70% of Americans who want a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United that granted corporations the power to spend unlimited and undisclosed amounts of money influencing our elections. But such an amendment requires that three-quarters of state legislatures to be on board too.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that many state governors have not taken a stand on this – simply because they haven’t had to.
Here’s where you come in. Let your governor know that you’re a fan of democracy, of government by the people, not by the corporations. Here’s a handy way to make that happen. I just tried it out for you. It works. And it feels good.
It could be a very serious mistake if a constitutional amendment did nothing more than to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision. Doing that could remove the protection that corporations have from having their property seized without due process of law and perhaps create other consequences as well.
In principal, I would not be against the amendment. But, it would have to be very written with extreme care to prevent unintended consequences which no one would support. Those who favor such an amendment have not indicated that they are aware of the possibility of undesirable unintended consequences.
That’s incorrect. Citizens United is a very narrow ruling, granting corporations (“fictitious persons”) the same rights to free speech as real people enjoy under the First Amendment; it has nothing to do with seizure of property. More at http://www.movetoamend.org
It doesn’t directly address seizure of property, but the Constitution does grant persons protection from seizure of property without due process. Thus, if corporations are no longer defined as persons, then they will no longer have constitutional protection from seizure of property without due process. Not defining them as persons may also have other unintended effects.
Corporations have, in the U.S., been legally treated as persons since the early 19th century.
Here is a quotation from the fourth amendment of the Constitution:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Again, any constitutional amendment to undo the effect of Citizens United must be worded extremely carefully to avoid unintended consequences else it may have effects well beyond undoing Citizens United. So, although a way must be found to prevent corporations from exercising undo influence on the political process, it must be done with great care.
Frank:
Yes, due process is an important part of our Constitution, which itself derives from the Magna Carta 500 years its senior. But what you’re talking about is part of the 5th, not 1st Amendment, and really has nothing to do with this case.
The displeasure about this ruling is centered around advertising for public office. I came up with these general thoughts to address this.
Only registered voters can donate to political campaigns and they can only donate to the maximum allowed by law.
Only the campaigns for political office can advertize and all advertising must be factual. I think England is dabling with truth in advertising now. No third party advertizing at all. If you are not running for office you cannot advertise.
All donations must be made public so anyone can know where the money came from. For people donating to campaigns I think this is already the law.
That should limit the money and the noise. It may not be perfect but I say run with this for a while and make adjustments later. What is going on now doesn’t work and has no ties to reality.
True, it may not be perfect, but surely it is less imperfect than the present situation.
It would be especially good if they could actually enforce a requirement that advertising be factual. On the other hand, there are legitimate differences in economic theory which could lead to questions about whether some statements are actually factual. But, no law is perfect and the requirements could be polished up as experience dictates.