By Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap

It’s been three years since the Supreme Court issued its outrageous decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, overturning the flimsy campaign finance protections afforded under McCain-Feingold law. The case opened the floodgates to billions of dollars perverting our elections, much of it completely unreported, and some amount even coming from foreign corporations and governments. The Court literally legalized bribery, and wealthy individuals and special interests took full advantage of it.

As shameful as that decision is, we must confront the sobering reality that it is only the tip of the iceberg. A small ruling elite (often succinctly described as the 1%) have stolen control of the country, and they are ruling over us. They use the façade of elections to legitimize the theft. And even when decent legislation is enacted, they use the Courts to overturn those laws. Citizens United vs. FEC is merely a deepening of the crisis of corporate rule.

At the crux of the crisis are two core legal doctrines. One is “corporate personhood,” a court-created precedent that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings. The other is “money equals free speech.”

An amendment to the US Constitution is the only lasting solution to this problem. The only amendment worth fighting for MUST address both doctrines. As a quick refresher, here is are some examples of we must abolish ALL corporate constitutional rights:

1st Amendment Free Speech rights. Corporations use these rights, meant to protect human beings from the power of the state, to influence elections through political “contributions” (more like “investments”); to advertise for guns, tobacco and other dangerous products over the objections of communities; to avoid having to label genetically modified foods or food laced with hormones.

4th Amendment Search and Seizure rights. Corporations have used these rights to avoid subpoenas for unlawful trade and price fixing, and to prevent citizens, communities and regulatory agencies from stopping corporate pollution and other assaults on people and communities.

5th Amendment Takings, Double Jeopardy and Due Process corporate rights. Corporations must be compensated for property value lost (e.g. future profits) when regulations are established to protect homeowners or communities. Corporations cannot be retried after a judgment of acquittal in court. The granting of property to a corporation by a public official cannot be unilaterally revoked by a subsequent public official or Act of Congress.

14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection corporate rights. These rights, originally enacted to guarantee equal protection for African Americans, were gradually extended to corporations by the courts. Corporations have used these rights to build chain stores and erect cell towers against the will of communities; oppose tax and other public policies supporting local businesses over multinational corporations; and resist democratic efforts to prevent corporate mergers and revoke corporate charters through citizen initiatives.

Commerce Clause-related corporate rights. Corporations have used this section of the Constitution (Art 1, Sec 8) to ship toxic waste from one state to another over the “health, safety, and welfare” objections of communities – claiming the waste isn’t actually “waste” but “commerce.”

Contracts Clause-related corporate rights. The Supreme Court ruled in Dartmouth vs. Woodward (1819) that a corporation is as a party in a private contract based on the Contracts Clause (Art 1, Sec 10) rather than being a creature of public law. Even though the state creates a corporation when it issues a charter, that state is not sovereign over the charter, merely a party to the contract. Thus, corporations became “private contracts” with the state and, therefore, shielded from many forms of control by We the People.

Since the problem of corporate constitutional rights is multidimensional, the solution must be comprehensive.

One hundred and sixty years ago, those who believed the section of the Constitution (Art 4, Sec 2) defining people as property (slavery) was fundamentally immoral didn’t call for ending one or two dimensions of slavery. They didn’t organize to establish legislation through Congress, or a Slavery Protection Agency, nor ask slaveholders to sign a voluntary code of conduct to treat slaves a little less harshly. They called for abolition of the institution of slavery.

And today, the Move To Amend coalition suggests that we should not limit our vision and actions. Yes corporate money in elections is a problem. So let’s make sure our solution actually gets to the root causes.

Let’s set out to amend the constitution in a way that abolishes all rights wrongly granted to the corporate form over the last two centuries. Let’s put an end to the institution of corporate constitutional rights itself.

Nothing less is worth the considerable time and learning, grit and energy, required to amend the Constitution.

Why not make the result worth the effort?

Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap serves on the Executive Committee Move to Amend. She is Field Organizing Coordinator for the campaign.

photo courtesy dnkemontoh

By Nick Bentley
Published November 11, 2012

For anyone who opposes excessive corporate influence over government, these are encouraging days: there’s now a widespread groundswell of support across the country to overturn Citizens United and deprive corporations of their improper status as “people”.

However, we’ve noticed a misconception spreading that Citizens United is an extension of corporate personhood. It’s not.

It’s true that Citizens United strengthened First Amendment protections for corporations. But the basis for that protection isn’t corporate personhood. Rather, the court’s decision rests on two other assumptions:

1. That money equals speech; and
2. That non-persons have the right to speech.

That second point is the kicker. If corporate personhood ended tomorrow, it wouldn’t affect Citizens United at all, because non-persons have speech rights now too. If your underpants could talk, they would be protected by the First Amendment.

How do we know this? First, look at some relevant text in the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy:

Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to… distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content.

In other words: the identity of the speaker is irrelevant. Justice Scalia drives this point home in his concurrence:

The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment.

Justice Scalia stresses that the First Amendment doesn’t exclude “any category of speaker,” The First Amendment protects anything that speaks, whether it’s legally a person or not.

This is a key point for those of us who hope to reign in excessive corporate influence through a constitutional amendment. It’s not enough to merely revoke corporate personhood. To overturn Citizens United, we also have to overturn the two assumptions listed above.

Luckily it’s not difficult get the language right. Both Reclaim Democracy and Move to Amend have proposed amendments which would do so. For example, rather than simply establish that “Corporations are not people,” Reclaim Democracy’s amendment specifies that “the U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.”

It’s a small difference in language with big implications. Let’s make sure that all who advocate for an amendment understand the distinction.

Resources

• Our comprehensive overview of corporate personhood
• Our introduction to Citizens United
• Our proposed constitutional amendments
• Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights

Citizens United pig courtesy WWYD
Underpants photo courtesy Enrique_L.

Published November 6, 2012
By Reclaim Democracy staff

One state went red and the other blue in the presidential election, but citizens of Montana and Colorado agreed by vast margins that we need to amend the U.S. Constitution to revoke the overwhelming power of money over elections.

In Montana, early returns showed a whopping 75 percent of voters supporting Initiative 166, which directs Montana’s congressional delegation to help pass an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would revoke corporate personhood. In addition to overruling multiple instances of pro-corporate activism by the U.S. Supreme Court justices, such an Amendment would allow reinstatement of Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act, struck down by a federal court just months ago after it protected the integrity of state elections for 100 years.

In Colorado, Amendment 65 had won overwhelmingly with 73 percent of votes as of this writing. The measure instructs Colorado’s congressional delegates and state legislature to support an Amendment that allows Congress and the states to limit campaign contributions and spending (presumably overruling Buckley v Valeo).

While Reclaim Democracy supported the measure, we share concerns ably expressed by Stephen Justino of Colorado Move to Amend in this op-ed, saying Amendment 65 should have confronted corporate personhood directly. It’s dubious whether the current Supreme Court justices would interpret an Amendment enabling states to regulate campaign spending as applying to “independent expenditure.s ” Notably, the claim that independent expenditures are non-corrupting — the basis of Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United v FEC — was shown to be fictional by revelations here in Montana (Reclaim Democracy’s home base) this week. Both initiatives were funded by their respective state Common Cause chapters and enjoyed support from a wide range of citizen groups.

In addition to calling for an Amendment to revoke corporate personhood, Montana’s I-166 adds “the people of Montana regard money as property, not speech.” Many state constitutions demand amendments address only one issue, preventing a single ballot measure calling for both revoking corporate personhood and “money = speech.” However we urge any such effort combine both messages, even if two parallel initiatives are required.

Notably, in Montana’s most hotly contested races, the candidate supporting a ban on corporate electioneering won. Among them was Steve Bullock, who aggressively defended the Corrupt Practices Act all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court as the state’s Attorney General this year. Bullock, a Democrat, won the race for Governor.

Both the Colorado and Montana measures are symbolic since their “instruction” to legislators cannot be legally binding. Nevertheless, we think their overwhelming popularity will build further momentum created by more than 100 communities passing local anti-corporate personhood measures in recent years. They’re the next logical progression in building a Democracy Movement to educate and organize citizens to reclaim democracy from corporate corruption. Congratulations to all who worked on these measures for their resounding victories!

Why is Montana at the forefront of this struggle? See Roots of Rebellion: Why Montana is the Only State to Reject Citizens United.

Addendum

We emphasize that it’s not just Montana and Colorado. More than 400 cities and towns have passed resolutions or ordinances measures calling to end corporate personhood or have serious efforts underway. The votes typically are won by huge margins. Many of the efforts were coordinated through Move to Amend, a broad national coalition with more than 150 chapters nationwide and nearly 250,000 endorsers. Some examples:

• In Eau Claire, WI 71 percent of voters favored a measure stating, “Should the US Constitution be amended to establish that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech, by stating that only human beings, not corporations, unions, or PACs, are entitled to constitutional rights?”
• In conservative Pueblo, Colorado, where the city newspaper came out against the measure, residents still voted 65% in favor of a Move to Amend resolution, placed on the ballot by County Commissioners.
• Move to Amend volunteers in Massachusetts collected signatures to place the constitutional amendment question before one third of the population of their state, and “MA Democracy Amendment Question” passed by 79% overall.
• Voters in Mendocino County, CA  approved a “stand with the Move to Amend campaign” by a 73% margin. Resolutions also passed in several towns in Illinois and Ohio and Oregon, all by similar landslide margins.
•  Common Cause also put forward several measures calling , at least, to overturn Citizens United [note: such a reversal would fall far short of revoking corporate personhood–it would return us to the 2010 status quo] and to grant Congress authority to regulate campaign spending.  Approval was 80% in San Francisco, 72% in Richmond, CA, and 74% in Chicago.

There’s little doubt that a movement is gathering force, not just to overturn Citizens United, but to reverse the precedent of corporations enjoying “constitutional rights.” Notably, Montana’s initiative was the first of its kind we’ve seen covered by the Wall St. Journal. A majority of Americans want to limit undue corporate influence and have for some time. Yesterday’s results indicate we’re increasingly ready to put those beliefs into action.

You can read the full text of the Montana or Colorado (pdf) initiatives and see the language of Reclaim Democracy’s Proposed Constitutional Amendments.

For background, see our comprehensive introduction to Citizens United.

photo courtesy truthout.org