Sensible, intelligent Americans are furious over the recent Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that struck down limits on corporate spending in presidential and congressional elections. Those of us who wail against the corpocracy with its corruption of government could hardly believe that this decision could in any way be justified. A major reaction has been a number of groups calling for a constitutional amendment to fix the problem.
It helps to know that three current constitutional amendments resulted because of Supreme Court decisions that needed remedial action: the Eleventh Amendment (shoring up states’ legal immunity), the Sixteenth Amendment (authorizing a federal income tax), and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (assuring eighteen-year-olds the right to vote).
Among the current efforts MoveToAmend.org has already received nearly 50,000 signatories to support is plan, particularly: Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Another active group is ReclaimDemocracy.org advocating: Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.
Ultimate Civics, a project of Earth Island Institute, wants this: This amendment affirms that constitutional rights extend only to human persons. Corporations, partnerships, and other organization entities are not human persons and, therefore, are not entitled to constitutional protections.
Largely missing from all this attention to the need for a new constitutional amendment, however, is the recognition that Congress, already corrupted by corporate and other special interest money, is very unlikely – no, make that will surely never propose any such amendment. Nor will any congressional attempts at fixing the Supreme Court problem with legislation do what is needed. In fact, there has been an older movement to take all private money out of federal elections and go to total public financing, which would offer the benefit of opening up the US political system to competitive third party candidates. But this too has never received strong support.
What merits far more attention and support is the use of the alternative path to amending the US Constitution offered in Article V. However, the convention of state delegates option has never been used because Congress has stubbornly refused to obey this part of the Constitution, as if they have a right to pick and choose what to obey, despite the one and only requirement for an Article V convention being satisfied. Indeed, there have been some 750 applications for a convention from all 50 states, more than the two-thirds requirement. A major reason Congress has gotten away with this illegal behavior is that nearly all organized political interests on the left and right have opposed a convention. Why? Because they like their current ability to corrupt Congress through lobbying and other forms of spending and fear true reforms of our political and government system through amendments proposed by a convention, which still must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Both ratification and the exact words in Article V prevent any wholesale rewriting of the entire Constitution.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Andy Marsh
I'd comment on this, but since the first line of the article infers the writer believes me to be neither sensible or intelligent, why bother?
The only people really pissed about this decision are the labor unions. Big business gives pretty much equally between the two parties, while unions give disproportionately to dems...so who got screwed here?
2 - Mark
Andy, wait until the next election cycle and the crescendo of ads and you will agree that it is our sensibilities that got screwed.
And in the same line of thought, Joel, imagine the period of intense propaganda that would follow a convention. Could we stand it?
3 - Andy Marsh
As if we aren't already bombarded with them as it is?
There are only so many minutes in an hour Mark. Still have to have time for the actual programming!
I say make them tell the truth in the ads and that should put a stop to most of them. Not that any of them can tell what the truth really is...
Corporations already give BILLIONS of dollars as it is! I saw something on MSNBC the other morning (yes, I watch Morning Joe every day) that showed that corps give about 50.4% to reps and 49.6% to Dems, where the unions give around 92% to dems and 8% to reps.
And public financing is a shitty idea too. I don't check that box on my tax returns now...these assholes in congress would probably make it mandatory if it changed to public funding!
I guess it really is unfortunate that our Constitution gives EVERYONE the right to spew bullshit...or fortunate as is the case here at BC!!!
4 - Mark
It's true that minutes of access to viewers is precious. I think that it's safe speculation that corporations will continue to put pressure on time allocated to programming vrs ads as we've seen on pbs.
I look forward to the all propaganda, all the time stations...oh wait
so the decision merely shores up the corporations' (and their lackey unions) already established power to price out anti corporatist candidates...?
not a problem
5 - jeannie danna
Joel,
There is the Article V convention!
I have been looking that, but the link is broken. Can you post again?
Thanks! :)
6 - Christine
While I am not 100% comfortable with this Supreme Court decision, I do have a question...
Why would "demand that Congress obey the Constitution?" Obama thinks the Constitution is "fundamentally flawed."
Obama rips U.S. Constitution
Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'
7 - jeannie danna
Christine,
I looked at the source of WorldNetDaily...and I don't think an evangelist should be our President.
We are not going to become a Theocracy, I pray we don't...
8 - jeannie danna
I looked at the source.
9 - Jordan Richardson
"He's talking about giving things to people," Limbaugh said. "This is perverted. Some people call this radical. I call it perverted."
Ah Rush, always there with the warm fuzzies.
Christine, as a Christian yourself, do you believe that giving things to people is perverted? Moreover, do you really believe that the civil rights movement didn't require redistributive change? And one more: do you believe the U.S. Constitution is a gift from God?
10 - Jordan Richardson
Still have to have time for the actual programming!
Nah, Andy. They sneak the ads into the programming now. And they'll do that even more.
11 - Christine
Hey...I did not say that I agree with Limbaugh, I rarely do. Just pointing out Obama on the Constitution. Yes, I know he was addressing civil rights, but wonder why he would uphold the Constitution in this Supreme Court case, but find flaw with it in other situations? That is all I was pointing out. Should have just put the YouTube link as to not confuse anyone...
12 - jeannie danna
Christine,
Hey...I did not say that I agree with Limbaugh, I rarely do.
That statement right there is one of the reasons I refer to you as "my favorite conservative!"
13 - jeannie danna
I don't know why this comment posted twice.
14 - Dave Nalle
Again with the relentless plugging of the insane Article V convention...I'm at a loss.
Dave
15 - Dan(Miller)
Come on, Dave. It should be a barrel of laughs and could be live blogged for months. Hundreds of nifty ideas would be presented and the old Gong Show could be revived. It might even supplant some of the (un)reality shows on TV. Great Zeus! Just think of the articles to be written and consider it a full employment act for pundits and other assorted talking heads. It could turn out to be a better economic stimulus package than all of the present efforts to create/save jobs combined.
Get with it.
Dan(Miller)
16 - Dave Nalle
It might be bread and circuses for the new era, true.
Can we throw in lions and human sacrifice?
Dave
17 - Dan(Miller)
Here is a constitutional amendment which all right thinking people should support.
Dan(Miller)
18 - The Obnoxious American
If you're against the supreme court ruling, you're against freedom of speech simple as that. Of course I'm sure you and the other crazies here will just dismiss me too, as unsensible and unintelligent, you know, just like the framers, and Clarence Thomas.
19 - zingzing
oa--that's really boiling it down to stupidity.
20 - The Obnoxious American
Wow, judging by my last sentence and your last post I must be psychic. Don't bother explainining how it's not an infringment on free speech, just call me stupid.
Yes corporations should be allowed to have free speech, especially in an era where they are frequently demonized by the socialists currently elected to office. Obama ran his entire campaign, a nearly billion dollar scheme, itself larger than many corporations, railing against the oil, insurance, and banking industries. Why shouldn't these industries have a right to address Obama's claims (many/most of which were inaccurate and bombastic)? Because it hurts your adgenda? Got it. As I said, if you are against this ruling, you're against free speech. You sir, are against free speech.
21 - zingzing
corporations don't speak? corporations don't vote?
i didn't call you stupid, i just said that if you want to say "if you're against this, you're against free speech," that's putting it far too simply. you boiled it down to where there is no argument against it, but you missed the mark on what this does by a mile.
i'm obviously not against free speech. why would i be?
22 - Achmed
i'm obviously not against free speech. why would i be?
Silence!!! I keel you!!
23 - roger nowosielski
"Yes corporations should be allowed to have free speech, especially in an era where they are frequently demonized by the socialists currently elected to office."
And though ought to be - demonized that is!
One would think OA must be a chairman of the board, or at least on the board of directors, so adamant he is about corporate rights. Most likely, he's just another shmock, defending the indefensible.
I have a suggestion for you, OA. Try to find a creed of your own, something in which you can truly believe, rather than trying to place all bets on the American constitution and American way of life. It's only shows the impoverishment of you as a person - limited ideas, limited notions, just a tin man.
It might make a human being out of you yet, because thus far you're really a very poor excuse for one.
24 - roger nowosielski
And it ought to be demonized (correction)
25 - The Obnoxious American
Seemed quite clearly that you were calling my comments and by extension my position stupid. Sounds like you're calling me stupid but then again I am a republican.
I haven't missed the mark on what this does by a mile. In fact I think the opposite is true. Obama's attacks on all manner of industry, unions shilling for his point of view, various pacs overloading the airwaves with their slants yet corporations, the very thing that provides people (and unions) jobs, keeps our economies moving and puts food on our tables must sit in the corner with a dunce cap? No, sorry, that's just wrong. If you live in a world where the corporations are bad, then yes, you hate this but you also then hate capitalism and by extension America, and I'd advise you to move somewhere else like maybe Cuba.
In the real world corporations aren't bad. They represent the people that work for them and the shareholders that invest in them, all who have a right to express their view if they so choose. And the fact is they most often won't choose - why would they? So that the shareholders profits can be spent on TV ads that alienate roughly half of their customer base? Sillyness.
Oh well Hugo Chavez could buy ads in the US via his US based shell corp right? You mean like how hugo chavez gets props now in those Joe 4 Oil commercials where Joe Kennedy, an actual politician (liberal no less), has been bought an sold by a foreign entity?
This debate, and more accurately, your position on it is plainly absurd. This is why the educational system sucks because so few understand the constitution and the bill of rights, and what they truly mean.