When Abe Lincoln talked about “government of the people, by the people and for the people” at the Gettysburg battlefield in November 1863, it’s a pretty safe bet he wasn’t including corporations in his definition of “people.”
But in January 2010, a bitterly divided US Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same free-speech rights as people – meaning they can pour unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns.
In a 5-4 ruling the court’s conservative majority struck down the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, which restricted corporate and labor union spending on “electioneering communications.” President Obama called the decision “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
The decision was an example of radical judicial activism, and a group called the Campaign to Legalize Democracy is pushing a radical remedy for it – a constitutional amendment that would make it clear that corporations and unions don’t have the same rights as actual, living, breathing human beings.
Two representatives of the movement, David Cobb and Riki Ott, will be at the Central Oregon Environmental Center on Kansas Avenue in Bend this weekend to talk about the court’s decision and how to fight it.
Cobb, the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate, and Ott, an Alaskan community activist and writer, are aiming to “help local citizens learn how they can work to abolish corporate personhood and reestablish a government of, by, and for the people,” according to a news release.
“The movement we are launching is a long-term effort to make the U.S. Constitution more democratic,” Cobb said in the release. “We recognize that amending the Constitution to restore the power of the people over corporations will not be easy, but we know correcting the Supreme Court is imperative to the progress of our nation.”
The meeting with Cobb and Ott will take place from 7 to 9 pm Sunday at the Environmental Center; admission is free.
The group also has launched an on-line petition drive to gather signatures in support of the constitutional amendment. At this writing, almost 69,000 people have signed.
This article appears in Mar 4-10, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Curiously, unless I missed it, there have been no postings or letters that support the Supreme Court’s decision from anyone of any particular political persuasion. I would hope that the ‘amendment’ also include labor unions and NGO’s (trial lawyers associations, for instance). Also that it includes strict campaign donations prohibitions by the same. Unless that happens, there will be corporate end-runs that will result in the status quo.
I firmly believe that such an amendment would turn the election process upside down. Without the access money incumbents receive that guarantees their return election after election and then the accumulation of wealth and property they all seem to amass over time, we would see more fresh faces in office, a more responsive government listening to the electorate, and a rise in the confidence of the citizenry when questions about their government arise.
We have become a nation of cynics because our politicians are for sale to the highest bidder and we, the electorate, are unable to do anything about it.
And please, those of you who are going to pounce on this and say that all the people have to do is vote in their best interest and vote the rascals out, how about a dose of reality? Maybe only 8% of the voters think that incumbents should be reelected, but 98% of those who choose to run for reelection win and return. They have the money to outspend a challenger. They have gerrymandered their districts into ‘safe’ seats. They are able to provide the pork barrel incentives that make them look like they are working for their constituents.
This is a national problem that only worsens and requires a radical approach. Incrementalism seems to be on the side of the big special interests. The people are being ignored and screwed.
Every candidate should have public or limited individual finance only. Corporations, unions, and special interest organizations such as Greenpeace, PITA, trial lawyers. etc… should have no place in the process. Unfortunately it is not what the political system has morphed in to. We are not a democracy by design by our forefathers, we are a republic where local jurisdiction should be more prominant that the vote of the masses from a place that has no relations to the other. The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for just like the Federal Government. A perfect local example is the recent vote in Oregon to raise taxes on businesses and individuals just to justify the promised raises to government employees. This side of the Cascades was not in sync with the valley side. If it was kept local, the advertising from the valley and the intellectuals and liberals who chose to live in the valley could have kept their absurd spending, nanny state promises without impacting Central Oregon whose situation is totally different.
“I would hope that the ‘amendment’ also include labor unions and NGO’s (trial lawyers associations, for instance).”
Absolutely. Any “person” that doesn’t live and breathe and eat and die should not be entitled to the rights of persons under the Constitution.
A corporation or a labor union is no more a legitimate “person” than a mushroom or a rock is. The “personhood” of such organizations is simply a legal fiction.
We agree on this one Mr. Miller!
The way to correct an obvious problem is not to go partisan on it. I actually read most of the Supreme Court’s decision on this topic. The reasons behind it are based in equal opportunity and discarding old laws that allowed some groups to get around campaign finance laws while holding others back.
We know that Unions use part of their union dues for political contributions and advertising to promote a cause that will help the bosses keep their power. Others would form PAC’s to collect money from multiple doners (who often remain anonymous) to make their contributions. and yes, the deeper the pockets, the greater influence they can purchase.
What this ruling did was to clear the palette and put all who want to contribute on an equal plane. It clears the way to begin rebuilding finance laws – and we can only hope that it will prevent any & all special interest groups from buying the candidate of their choice. By just targeting the ‘evil” corporations will only lead us back to the mess we had to begin with.
Elections or simular to the O.J. trial – how much justice can you afford? Restated for campaign finance, it means how much influence can you buy? As stated here, the recent tax measure passage was bought by special interest groups. Most campaigning is full of half-truths and incomplete information. It is unfortunate that the Truth in Advertising laws do not apply there.
I have thought of a few radical ideas to help in this area:
1. Term Limits
2. Manditory reporting of contributions from non-individuals in a very public forum.
3. Limit non-individual contributions to a small amount within a given period of time.
4. Eliminate PACs & simular coalitions.
5. Do not allow candidates to retain unspent contributions once an election is over to avoid the buildup of so called “War Chests” of campaign money. Return the funds proportionally to all donors or just give it to the Red Cross.
6. Have primary elections on the same day across the country (Oregon republicans were disinfranchised on the last round because by the time we got to vote, most candidates had dropped out).
7. Allow people to vote for any candidate, anytime regardless of party affiliation.
8. Apply the Electorial College concept to State elections. (That would give Central Oregon voters an equal voice in local elections and not allow Portland & Salem to dictate terms by shear mass. Washington State has the same problem). Without the College, the large states would dominate all elections.
9. Apply Truth in Advertising to political advertising. Stop the half-assed game playing!
There are more ideas that should be considered as well, but we should make sweeping changes across the board, if the intent is to give the election process back to the people. If all you care about is crushing ‘evil corporations’, then we go back to your political hack status.
Fairness can be won, but try to look for balance in the whole picture and not just nit-pick at favorite partisan targets.
J Hagler: Before you launch into your next your damn-those-pointy-headed-west-side-liberals rant you might want to give some thought to the fact that Eastern Oregon consistently receives way more in state spending (for education, highways etc.) than it pays in state taxes. If the dang liberals in Portland and the Valley ever decide to keep their tax dollars on their side of the mountains, this side will be in deep doo-doo.
HBM, while I have some problems with your “radical judicial activism” BS comment especially when compared to the 9th “circus” court of appeals, I whole heartedly agree with the sentiment.
Yet I believe all McCain-Feingold did was to funnel corporate and union money into PACS either directly or through lobbies/lobbyists. Perhaps one upside of this SC decision will be the elimination of a number of PACS and bogus associations whose only function was to launder money into campaigns.
Unfortunately, a constitutional amendment will not work. There is no way you can get two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the states to even agree that Monday comes after Sunday.
What was the last amendment drive? The ERA (Equal Rights Amendment)from the early ’80s perhaps? Probably everyone could agree on 90% of that amendment, but it didn’t happen. What has happened, I think, is that separate pieces of legislation have enacted most of that amendment anyway, although it took a number of years.
Perhaps that should be enough for us to support the efforts of the Campaign to Legalize Democracy. Gotta start somewhere.
This is a great idea. I read somewhere that Senator Dodd has recently proposed such an ammendment. However, considering our Government’s current interpretation of our Constitution (PATRIOT ACT, FISA, requiring permits to assemble and protest) I’m not sure they would even follow the proposed ammendment. Dissolving the Union on the other hand would fix the problems in Washington once and for all.
I read the entire Citizens United v. FEC decision the day it came out. Here’s my take:
Supporters of the movement to stop “non-persons” from making independent political expenditures are mostly from the political left. They know that unions have had a huge, unfair advantage in politics, something that was obvious in the recent tax election here in Oregon. Unions can take money out of employees’ paychecks and use it for politics without having to ask for permission to do so. That obscenity has allowed public employee unions to all but own every branch of state government in Oregon. Pretty much every rank and file public employee in Oregon supports the union agenda, whether they like it or not.
The Supreme Court’s decision will not change much. Here in Oregon, unions and corporations were already free to donate to or make independent expenditures for the benefit of all but federal candidates.
I will believe those who are promoting the ban on “non-individual” political donations are serious and well intended when they start actively supporting a ban on all labor union payroll deductions for politics without each employee’s written consent.
Unfortunately, Mr. Miller must view “we the people” to include the likes of other socialists as himself in Acorn and Unions. Socialists twist information to fit their clandestine works and actions. They say things about the Supreme Court justices that they themselves use to advance their anti-American “progressive” actions. Mr. Miller, admit that you are a follower of Saul Alinsky just as illicit president Obama is.
I never thought I’d see the day—
Coming at it from different directions but reaching the same conclusion, agreement by Miller and Sizemore on an issue: the purchase of influence by business, PAC’s, unions and NGO’s is a bad thing!!
I agree that this is a Quixotic quest at best, but the first step has to be taken. The ERA failed, but it propelled awareness and forced action where it was never considered possible. The results are real even though the means were different.
The injection of partisan rhetoric in this dialogue is inevitable and it will dilute the strength of argument and action unless people realize that they have a common ground and concern. If we drop the partisan lens that we all view our world with for a second, and read all of the above posts, one thing is apparent: no one is happy with the money that has corrupted the election process and system of government. Why not work together to correct it?
Probably, because in the end, fear will win once again and freeze any attempt at change. Between now and the time any action could be taken, labor unions would spend every dime they could to influence members, the public and politicians that the world is coming to an end and that any change was an attempt by ‘big business’ to end and usurp what ‘unions have fought for and achieved for the worker.’ Coincidentally, business and corporate interests would claim that it was an attempt to silence the ‘economic engine that made this country great’ and nothing more than a ‘socialist takeover that would end the free market system that creates jobs’ for a non-existent middle class.
We have turned over our government to a permanent ruling class of politicians, business, and special interests(i.e. unions, etc.). For instance–and I’m not picking on him because he is a Republican, but because I grew up in Iowa only twenty miles from where he was born and raised and knew him early in his career–US Senator Charles Grassley has been an elected official in State and Federal offices for 52 years. He is running once again for reelection and will undoubtedly win. His son, Robin also now has political aspirations, apparently (can we say dynasty?). While the senator spends his time decrying governmental spending and waste, Grassly’s son received over $699,000 in farm subsidies over ten years. Grassley’s website claims he farms the land with his son–a tenuous claim at best, for a US Senator, and something that hasn’t required him to recuse himself from voting on farm bills because of a conflict of interest. He’s just interested in helping the farmer. He has made some effort to limit subsidies to so-called ‘small farmers’, but unsuccessfully. He has an interesting voting record that demonstrates he has the ability to piss off every one of his constituencies from time to time. My favorite Grassley comment was his admission to living off the ‘government tit’. But how in touch with the needs and requirements of the real world of his constituents can he be if he has been a politician since he was twenty-five years old and is running to be an elected official for 58 years?! As someone in Iowa said–‘time to rotate the crop!’
My point is, the Dems have Robert Byrd (to their everlasting embarrassment) who has stayed to long, and the Repubs have theirs as well. The system enables them to remain as long as they like. We have to change it. The Definition of Insanity – Doing What You Always Do And Expecting a Different Result. We have to get beyond the partisan rhetoric and dogma and work together.
Let’s admit it to ourselves: even a broken watch is correct twice a day. Our best interests on this issue are the same.
“Apply the Electorial College concept to State elections. (That would give Central Oregon voters an equal voice in local elections and not allow Portland & Salem to dictate terms by shear mass. Washington State has the same problem).”
Sorry, I can’t go along with that one. Why should the 6,700 people of Harney County have the same voice in Salem as the 715,000 people of Multnomah County? How would that be fair?
You are correct in pointing out that the government of the United States was designed to be a republic, not a direct democracy. But the principle of one person, one vote is solidly enshrined in our laws and traditions.
The personal jibes and jabs made in other statements are a reflection of what has happened to “We the PEOPLE” democracy…the last 15 years of unbalanced rhetoric by unrepresentative factions on far right and left continue at every level of government today.
The bickering about personal beliefs, not respectful conversations and decisions to make laws that work for everyone, have supressed the MORAL MAJORITY of US Citizens (not in any religious sense).
A democracy means citizens actively working together for what is best for ALL; it means that each of us needs to obey laws and REPORT the fraud, waste and abuse we see every day (local, unelected officials ‘giving’ tax $ deemed ‘extra’ back to developers; medical/dental practitioners who commit insurance fraud leading to increased medical costs) .
We all must pay taxes and, when they seem unbalanced, fight for better, legally. Democracy that works requires us to communicate what we experience as unintended consequences from poorly written laws, to those who made them.
Note: As I read the voter’s pamphlet several years ago, one side in an issue had provided intentionally incorrect info to persuade voters of their side…I called our county election official to question this. Her reply:
“AS LONG AS ‘THEY’ PAY THE FEE, THEY CAN SAY ANYTHING”…..This Central Oregon attitude and lassitude is THE problem
“How would that be fair?” Such a typical liberal response.
I will tell how that would be fair. Statewide ballot issues apply to all people equally regardless of where they live. We have had proposals here on laws that effect ranchers, the forest industry, fish & wildlife & other topics important to those of us over in “rural” Oregon. Can you honestly tell me that most of the people in Portland understand our lifestyle over here? No you can’t.
The main thing important to westsiders is being green. That is the mindset with which they vote. They force us to live by their standards when they are clueless on the impact in the real world. So, to quote you, “How’s that fair?” It isn’t and you know that. I’m sure that if the majority in this state was conservative, you’d sing a different tune (much like you whining about a right slanted article in the Bulletin).
I do not trust your support in the matter of campaign finance because you have never shown yourself to be anything but politically biased. You have shown that by the part of my comments you chose to respond to. I was hopeful that perhaps we could find common ground. I guess you just cannot have a real exchange of ideas with a “kool-aid-aholic”.
Elf: Well, we were having a nice polite discussion until you went ballistic on us. Why so much hostility? Or is that just your normal tone?
“‘How would that be fair?’ Such a typical liberal response.”
Yes, we liberals are in favor of fairness. I’m sorry you aren’t.
“I’m sure that if the majority in this state was conservative, you’d sing a different tune”
If the majority of people in this state were so conservative that I didn’t feel I could get along here I would move elsewhere. That option is open to you too. Just head east until you hit the Idaho border.
Elf–
Then it’s over before we get started: ‘I do not trust your support in the matter of campaign finance because you have never shown yourself to be anything but politically biased.’ YOU have biases, I have biases, we ALL have biases! If your point of view is mainstream–than we can never work together on anything, regardless of how warranted action is..
This is one of the problem with so-called modern political dialogue. We have verbal bomb-throwers who refuse to admit that they have biases and that it is impossible for others they may disagree with to move beyond the biases. On the left they scream ‘fascist!’ and on the right they scream ‘socialist!’ They wrap themselves in the mantle of the holy warrior and ignore the issue. Ad hominem attacks are substituted for the substantive discussion of ideas and nothing is accomplished.
‘”How would that be fair?” Such a typical liberal response.’ Based on your responses and train of thought, I would predict that nothing would ever be considered fair unless it was your desired outcome.
The Federal Constitution’s 14th and 19th amendment affirm and guarantee the principle of one person-one vote. Because you are unhappy with the results you advocate a system that nullifies the intent of the voters if it is not an outcome you want. I’d advocate a little patience, instead.
Less than 18 months ago the Republican Party was pronounced dead–extinct. In their hubris the Democrats decided that they had not only won the Presidency and a majority in the Congress, but permission to do anything they felt necessary in the best interest of the ‘American People.’ You remember, the same way the Republicans behaved following the mid-term elections of 1994. You remember, the ‘political capital’ George Bush was going to spend in 2005 to ‘privatize social security.’ The current resurgence of the Republican Party is not because of their actions and policies–almost all the polls show that the voters are equally fed up with the behavior of both parties. No, it is strictly because they aren’t Democrats. I predict that the Republicans will have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are no more capable of governance than the Democrats very soon, behaving with equal hubris.
At the beginning of this thread, ‘I was hopeful that perhaps we could find common ground. I guess you just cannot have a real exchange of ideas with a “kool-aid-aholic”.’
Amen, brother, amen!!
Last time I checked Idaho was north. If Barney Frank hadn’t screwed up the economy, I could sell my house and move north. North Idaho’s a nice place to live – especially now since the idiots in white robes are cinsidering moving south (I really wouldn’t wish that trash on anybody!)
You implied if i don’t like it here, i could move. I have made the same suggestion to you when you try to tell people how terrible this country is for not wanting national health care. Why would we want something that has failed every place it’s been tried?
When I hear “that’s not fair”, I think of little, spoiled children. It grates me the same as the term “reasonable attorney’s fees”.
I will ask, of all the points I made, why did you choose to respond to the Electoral College comment? I really do want to know. Is that the only point of contention here? If you feel the other points were valid, why did you not pick up on those in a tone of “reconciliation”? You attack with a immature whimper and then call me hostile?
Fairness should apply equally to all people. However, our tax structure and welfare mentallity divides the classes and breeds contempt. Wealthy citizens are demonized as if the got their wealth through strong-arming. The poor are kept poor by making them dependant on entitlements. By the way, there are more democratic millionares in congress than republicans, so don’t make wealth a partisan arguement.
Are you going to put on your big-boy pants and try to find common ground or do you just want to continue the anomosity? Are you capable of reaching across the table? That is how my first post here was presented. Well? Are you?
“Based on your responses and train of thought, I would predict that nothing would ever be considered fair unless it was your desired outcome.”
Bingo.
“Last time I checked Idaho was north.”
Better check again. Maybe you should stop using that Fox News map.
As for the rest of your post, it’s just a rehash of the same right-wing blather we’ve been hearing for 30 years and not worth a response.
Space Elf,
My gawd, how can anyone take anything you say seriously when you make such basic errors? It’s obvious that you can’t/haven’t read a map or know what direction east is? Only a small portion of Idaho is north of Oregon. A more accurate direction from Oregon to that small part of Idaho would be described as northeast. Whew! Have you considered going back to school? Or maybe just taking a few deep breaths and think for a while before you start typing?