Kudos to Milwaukee County Supervisor Chris Abele for vetoing the Milwaukee County Board's attempt to put a referendum on the ballot calling for an end to corporate personhood.
The 14 members of the Board who voted for it* and the liberal groups supporting it** are either (a) completely ignorant of basic constitutional principles, or (b) perfectly aware of how incredibly dangerous such a change would be, yet willing to pander to how ignorant they perceive their constituents to be.
As reported in the County’s press release, the resolution would have asked “whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended to establish that only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
Let’s focus on the first part of that*** – stripping corporations of constitutional rights. What effect would that have?
- Nearly all major news organizations are organized as corporations. Having lost all their constitutional rights, they would now be subject to complete and utter government censorship and control. Any government – federal, state, or local, could ban all publication of any newspaper, shut down any TV news broadcast, prohibit political endorsements, or even dictate exactly what they said.
- Most religious institutions are organized as corporations. The Constitution currently protects not only individuals’ freedom of religion, but religious institutions’ freedom of religion. That would be thrown out the window if those corporate religious institutions had no rights. Don’t like Mormonism? Scientology? Christianity? Shut down their churches. Politicians could regulate worship services anyway they liked.
- The Constitution gives people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally speaking, cops need a warrant in most circumstances to search your home – or your business (at least after hours or in places not open to the public). But what if we take constitutional rights away from corporations? The police could search any corporation’s property at any time, for any reason (or no reason at all) with impunity.
- The Constitution also says that government can only take our life, liberty, or property by using due process of law. Except if a corporation has no constitutional rights, government can take corporate property at any time, with no due process, without compensation. Government could also revoke corporate charters (the “life” of the corporation) at any time, for any reason, without due process.
- Nonprofit organizations are corporations. Would you want the Sierra Club, the NRA, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Americans United for Life, and every other nonprofit advocacy group stripped of the right to speak on their issues of concern? Subject to destruction by politicians who disagree?
- Unions (both public and private) are corporations. They would be subject to all the same abuses listed above.
- PACs themselves – the basic political organizations “not affiliated with any candidate or candidate’s committee” and subject to the disclosure, registration, and fundraising limitations that “Super PACs” typically aren’t – are corporations as well. This constitutional amendment would pare back the right to engage in any kind of political advocacy to individuals alone. Rich individuals have a lot of clout under the current system, yes, but at least people of like minds can pool their resources together to combat the speech they don’t like with more speech. That pooling would become a lot more difficult – if not completely impossible – should corporations be stripped of their right to speak on political matters.
Think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at Move to Amend’s website, which explicitly lists the rights it doesn’t want corporations to have, including 1st amendment (free speech, free religion), 4th amendment (being free from unreasonable search and seizure) 5th amendment (due process, takings without compensation), 14th amendment (due process and equal protection), commerce clause, and contracts clause rights.
What’s really scary is any level of government would be able to exercise this tyranny over corporate entities. Have you seen how petty, controlling, and vindictive the governing boards of some small towns (and even bigger villages and cities) can get? Is that really the kind of power you want to put in the hands of government officials? For people who fear what Republicans might do to unions, this should be particularly frightening.
This amendment isn’t about the rights of corporations per se. It’s about the rights of individuals to join together in a corporate form without losing their constitutional rights. People joining together as corporations are still people. I would never willingly give up those rights, and I hope better education will help people understand that by supporting such a constitutional amendment they are stripping themselves of many, many rights.
People don’t like a lot of the political speech they see. I completely agree – most political ads are awful – and the further an ad is removed from the candidate her- or himself, the more awful it tends to be. But the solution to speech you don’t like isn’t to ban that speech – it’s to engage in more speech. Whatever happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
For more scholarly consideration of such “people’s rights” amendments, see here, here, here, and here.
* Chair Marina Dimitijevic, Deanna Alexander, David Bowen, Gerry Broderick, David Cullen, Jason Haas, Nikiya Harris, Willie Johnson, Patricia Jursik, Michael Mayo Sr., Peggy Romo West, Joe Sanfelippo, Russell Stamper II, John Weishan, Jr.
** For example, United Wisconsin, People for the American Way, Move to Amend
*** Giving government the power to ban people from spending money to spread their message brings its own set of problems.
Hi Jim Crist, "The first amendment protects speech, the press and religion." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, unless that religion is corporate organized, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless people want to incorporate a church; or abridging the freedom of speech unless a corporation is speaking, or of the press unless a corporation is trying to exercise that right. Yep, that's exactly what the founders wrote! I'm curious as to why you think "corporate billionaires" control all of government, yet you trust government not to engage in tyranny at the same time?"
So, how would a candidate qualify for government campaign financing exactly?
I do agree with you. There has always been lies in politics- look at political humor. That's the stereotype, right? Thus said, it is never a good thing and it has seemed to get out of control. We do need campaign finance reform. I do worry about it's comletion. There is a whole lot of money involved and Democrats are just as suseptable to money as Republicans. Would the President have spoke out against CU in the State of the Union address if his SuperPAC were making the same money as Mitt Romney's? I adore the President, but I must admit I highly highly doubt he would have. We need serious people to make some serious descisions. They will be tough. They will not be easy. I fear it will take some informed voters to back with votes more than money to get this. Idealistic, I know, but what else can we do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Elections Another good approach is Larry Lessig's "Democracy Voucher" http://wiki.lessig.org/The28th
And here's what progressive atheism gets us - Kardashian breast implants over observance of the 9/11 moment of silence. http://tv.yahoo.com/news/nbc-shamed-in-social-media-for-failing-to-cover-9-11-moments-of-silence.html You sure you picked the right team to back?
Besides, the terrorists of 9/11 were religious zealouts. So yeah, my Atheist backs the right team. Science flies people to explore space. Religion flies them into buildings.
Secondly, he clearly wants to frame this debate as a partisan one by citing it was brought by "liberal groups". In fact this type of resolution is being brought before governing bodies all over the country by citizens who have political views ranging from far left to far right. The fact that 14 of 18 board members (78%) voted in favor of it is very reflective of most polling on the subject and seems to support my position that it is a non partisan issue. Third, I don't accept the premise of your question as stated. You can't "strip corporations of constitutional rights" they were never granted by the constitution in the first place. This is where most of your arguments fall apart. Corporations are legal fictions that are granted priviledges, not rights and there is a huge difference. Priviledges can most definitely be revoked.
Regardless of if you believe corporations don't have constitutional rights or you think they do have them but they should be stripped of them, either construction leads to all the possibilities I listed. Do you believe government should be able to censor and control the speech of corporations? Do you believe government should be able to seize corporate property at will? Do you believe that if a corporation is sued in court, they should not be provided due process of law?
I find it interesting that so many confuse 'Corporation' with 'Crony Capitalism' and don't understand the 'Law of Unintended Consequences '.
You haven't answered my question of whether you think government ought to have that power. Business corporations are the vilified political bogeymen for those on the left - broadly speaking. Union corporations are the vilified political bogeymen for those on the right - also broadly speaking. All kinds of nonprofit corporations take political stances unpopular with governing parties. News corporations are often critical of governing politicians. That's a recipe for disaster if we take away corporate rights and give government - at all levels - the power to do just about anything to a corporation.
But you're on to something wondering what the return is that justifies spending so much by the politician him or herself. Do some reading on public choice theory, you'll probably find a lot to learn there.
What we have now is bad government controlled by corporations. We need to return to the framer's intent, where our elected officials are acting in the best interests of their constituent's needs. And not just the richest 1%.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CDkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fpubs%2Farticles%2FShapiro-JMLR-vol44-n4-2011.pdf&ei=4c1QUIDUNYTFyAGVk4CoCQ&usg=AFQjCNFAuBadJOpwK9K7VkvOusbQuLFNIw
Respectfully, Jeff Varady
Freedom of speech and free association for corporations are statutorily granted. The statutory privilege granted to the corporation is not for the corporation's interest but for the interest of the natural citizens making up the corporation. Corporations are allowed to spend their monies in any way they can legally spend it by law. To promote certain political positions are protected based on the corporation pursuing its own self interest. Hence, lobbying is allowed as well as political contributions. Amendments aren't needed, just statutory reform.
The twisted irony is that the 19th century claims of personhood were based on the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The OP continues and extends this misbegotten conflation of corporate and human rights. The argument that a government captured by capitalists is the problem is truly 'blaming the victim'. Though our government of/by/for the people has been lost, its restoration will not be found in unleashing neo-feudalism by reducing and further privatization of government into an appendage of the corporate state.
http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2012/09/18/taking-on-amendment-critics-part-xii-tom-kamenick/