The group Move to Amend has created a grass-roots movement to define persons as living beings, not corporations, who are endowed with constitutional rights and that money does not equal free speech.
LA City Council President and Mayoral candidate Eric Garcetti.
Move to Amend, joined by Common Cause, L.A. County Federation of Labor and Physicians for Social Responsibilty, Occupy LA, and other organizations, have put a resolution before the Los Angeles City Council which calls on Congress to amend the Constitution to clearly establish that only living persons, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights, and that money is not the same as free speech.
Move to Amend is a national coalition of hundreds of organizations with over 113,000 individuals that grew out of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited and anonymous contributions from corporations (and unions) to or on behalf of political campaigns.
As the coalition’s website states, “On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.”
Naturally, there is no mention of this movement and resolution before the LA City Council in the mainstream media.
If the LA City Council passes the resolution, Los Angeles would become the first major city to call on Congress to end corporate personhood and re-establish a certain degree of democratic fairness and sanity to the electoral and legislative processes.
On April 5, 2011, Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin voters passed two resolutions: first, that corporations are not persons and, secondly, that money is not free speech and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to violating the First Amendment protecting free speech.
“We are experiencing overwhelming support for what may be a historic turning point in restoring a voice to the voters and setting an example for the rest of the country,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Coordinator of Move To Amend LA. “This action would provide the basis for overturning the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.”
Other organizations who have endorsed the resolutions include the Environmental Caucus of the CA Democratic Party, Southern California Americans for Democratic Action, MoveOn LA, Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains, Democracy for America, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, AFSCME 36, LA Green Machine and California Clean Money Campaign.
The City Council is set to vote on the measure on December 6th.
Spread the word via Move to Amend’s Facebook page to do your part.
December 02, 2011 at 3:32 pm, Lifesart said:
Wow, I might just have to re-join faceplant in order to champion this incredibly worthwhile cause!
December 03, 2011 at 12:25 pm, Anonymous said:
If you type ‘corporate personhood’ into any search engine you will find dozens of stories in the mainstream media. That is because campaign laws concentrate the power and influence of teh corporate media.
The hush-hush of politics is controlling a segment of people
without those people recognizing they are being managed.
In 1789 The Constitution and Bill of Rights are established
as the law of the land.
For 97 years it was understood that 1st Amendment freedoms
of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens.
Corporations had no rights. Newspapers had the right to print because they
employed people and not the other way around.
“The 20th century has been characterized by three
developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy; the growth
of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of
protecting corporate power against democracy.” -Alex Carey, Australian
social scientist who pioneered the investigation of corporate propaganda (see
Taking the Risk Out Of Democracy, Univ of New South Wales, 1995)
In 1886 footnotes to the Santa Clara Railroad case, written by
a Supreme Court Clerk who was previously a railroad executive, became the basis
for corporations claiming the same rights as flesh and blood people.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972
Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on
contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But politicians
exempted the commercial press, because the 1st Amendment prohibits
abridging their freedom of speech and the press.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term “expenditure” does
not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the
facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other
periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any
political party, political committee, or candidate;
But we cannot rely on the commercial press to be unbiased
and provide the information we need to remain free. Both Republicans and
Democrats agree the press is biased and only differ on which networks and
newspapers are the culprits:
A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish
interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper’s
income… The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few…that it
cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct
information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is
necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote…in the
best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the
ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).
In my opinion the idea of media being objective was a
marketing ploy to sell newspapers:
“It was not until the 1920s that you really get the
notion of professional journalists, the way we think about them today,”
says Michael Delli Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at
the University of Pennsylvania. “A lot of different schools of journalism
started, codes of ethics were developed, the whole notion of the journalist as
objective came into play …. of standing outside the story, telling both sides,
of being factual rather than opinionated.”
If the United States Supreme Court defined freedom of
religion using the same logic that campaign laws use to define a free press
only the church or synagogue “as an institution” would enjoy freedom
of religion, not its parishioners!
“Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there
is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a
“special interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the
“issue advocacy” and “independent expenditure” realms of
political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when
anyone other than a media outlet engages in it. To illustrate the absurdity of
this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the
fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news
and, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not
mention a candidate 60 days before an election. This is patently absurd.”
– Senator McConnell
The press exemption divides participation in America’s
political process into two categories:
The regulated majority, every living U.S. Citizen, candidate for office,
political party and political organization and the unregulated commercial
media.
To restore equal protection under law, the “press exemption”, 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), should be modified to
read: “The term expenditure does not
include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate,
political party, citizen, citizens group, corporation, broadcasting station,
newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”
Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when
the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctions, to grant titles,
gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent
more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and
laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to
themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.
President Andrew Jackson.
The 1st Amendment does not guarantee our freedoms
but it does prohibit Congress from writing laws that would abridge them. The 1st
Amendment was added to the Constitution because some State representatives to
the Constitutional Convention feared the power of an over reaching Central
Government. State Constitutions are where protections of our freedoms of
speech, press and assembly are found. The 14th Amendment attempts to
extend Federal protection to the Bill of Rights and in this instance is
misconstrued. Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment and the Federal
Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violate the prohibitions of
the 1st Amendment. Federal Campaign laws abridge freedoms of speech,
press by limiting how much money individual citizens and citizens groups can
donate to their candidates and issues, and they abridge freedom of assembly by
declaring it a crime for candidates, political parties and grass roots
organizations to coordinate their advertising campaigns.
The solution to limiting corporate influence and restoring
flesh and blood citizen’s control of politics is not limiting how much
individuals and grass roots organizations can spend communicating. There is no
Constitutional basis for making political coordination a crime? Does a
candidate for office have the responsibility or authority to tell a citizen or
citizens group they cannot simultaneously put out campaign materials from the
candidate and a grass roots organization that supports the candidate? Where in
the Constitution does participating in politics require a candidate or citizen
to give up 1st Amendment freedoms of assembly and association?
UNITED STATES v. ASSOCIATED PRESS – Decided June 18, 1945
It would be strange indeed however if the grave concern for
freedom of the press which prompted adoption of the First Amendment should be
read as a command that the government was without power to protect that
freedom. That Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination
of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the
welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society.
Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of
ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose
restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish
means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the
Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not.
Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment
does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.
But corporate media can be part of the solution if they walk
their talk:
The commercial press is the most well-known promoter of
campaign reforms to get money out of politics. Among reasons given is the need
to level the playing field for challengers.
Since the only thing campaigns produce is information for
public distribution and the cost of distribution is the origin of much of the
need for money in politics, why don’t the commercial media offer to publish and
broadcast candidate and issue ads for free?
Not likely: there is speculation Obama may raise a billion
dollars and Republicans 750 million. Campaign season is Christmas for media
corporations.
December 03, 2011 at 3:37 pm, Anonymous said:
MSM news outlets are reporting the complaint against corporate personhood just type corporate personhood into your search engine!
What newspapers and broadcast corporations have never reported or debated is why they as “legal persons” or “legal fictions” should be exempt from laws that regulate the political communications of their “readers”, “viewers” and “listeners” and how they became exempt? Since flesh and blood “journalist” and”reporters” actually write the “political opinons” and “political endorsements” do they believe they should have more freedom to influence the political process than “readers, listeners, and viewers?
Have any “journalist” or “reporters” ever “defended” the equal speech and press riights of their “flesh and blood” readers and viewers?
NPR operates is a “corporation” and a 501c3 tax exempt organization. It is financed by “tax dollars” and ”tax exempt donations” and it is exempt from federal campaign finance laws that restrict the speech and press “Rights” of their listeners! The mainstream media and NPR support campaign finance reform because their editorial endorsements and news stories are “excluded” from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure”. The mainstream media did not support campaign finance reform until their Lobbyist had met with select members of congress in 1974 and worked out their so called “press exemption” found at 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i). After the MSM was exempted from the federal election reforms they promoted the reforms but did not inform their readers viewers and listeners about their exemption! The FEC started regulating the speech and press rights of “Living Persons” in 1975! By definition bussineses which are exempted from laws that regulate “political communications” are defacto a ”state approved press”! Campaign finance reforms have replaced a “free press” with a “STATE” approved press and have replaced “Enumerated Inalienable Rights” with “priveleges” exercised through “collectives” called political action committees!My solution:
Dictate the terms of your U.S. Representative and your U.S. Senators re-election.”DEMAND” they Amend the language used in 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) with the definitions inluded below if they want your vote! “The term “expenditure” does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen, citizens group, corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication. “The term ”contribution” does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen, citizens group, corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication. “Press” means any Citizen of the United States that engages in any form of public communication. “Media” means any Citizen of the United States that engages in any form of public communication. “Newspaper” means any form of printed material that includes any advertisement or other information for the purpose of public distribution, including information printed on paper, billboards, signs, fliers, web pages, and other electronic print material. Instructions for the federal and supreme court : [The purpose of this legislation is to clarify that the speech and press rights of the flesh and blood Citizens of the United States are no less than the speech and press rights of legal persons taking the form of newspaper and broadcast businesses operating in the United States.]
December 05, 2011 at 7:27 pm, Jason Grade said:
Corporations should not be allowed to make donations at all.
A corporation is made up of people. Each of those people has the right to make as much of a donation to a candidate as they want. The fact that corporate CEOs and shareholders can chose to spend the corporation’s money on campaign donations is like unfair double-dipping. The biggest thing preventing average Joe’s from making contributions to campaigns is that average Joes don’t have millions (or billions) of dollars of SOMEBODY ELSE’S money to spend on a whim. If corporate owners cared so much, then they should spend their own money on campaign donations, and their names should be publicly available! They should not have the right to spend money that should be going back into the company and it’s employees on campaign contributions that the majority of employees might not even support anyway. Especially if they are making record profits but still turning around and laying off workers by the bushel-full because of “the bad economy”.