General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Corporations Are Not People": Jayapal Files Bill to Reverse "Citizens United"
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) has introduced a bill that would end corporate personhood with the goal of reversing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the infamous Supreme Court decision that has unleashed a flood of corporate dark money into the U.S. election system, threatening to undermine democracy altogether. The We the People Amendment, introduced in the House with 26 cosponsors, proposes a Constitutional Amendment that would establish that only people not artificial entities like lobbying groups and corporations have rights given by the Constitution. This would undercut the root of the Citizens United decision, in which Supreme Court justices ruled that limiting political spending from corporations constitutes a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Corporations are not people and money is not speech, Jayapal said in a statement. In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country. My We the People Amendment returns the power to the people by finally ending corporate constitutional rights, reversing Citizens United, and ensuring that our democracy is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people not corporations. Overturning Citizens United has been a longtime goal of progressive lawmakers and advocates, who have warned that the vast and growing influence of corporations and billionaires on elections is destroying what semblance of democracy the U.S. has.
Ever since the 2010 decision, the amount of outside spending on elections has increased precipitously in every election cycle, with a direct effect on election results; last years midterm elections were the most expensive in history, while the vast majority of House races were won by the biggest spender. At the state level, this is causing an extreme lurch to the right within state legislatures, fueling the GOPs unprecedented fights against abortion access, public education and LGBTQ rights.
https://truthout.org/articles/corporations-are-not-people-jayapal-files-bill-to-reverse-citizens-united/
vlyons
(10,252 posts)Corporate and dark money is at root of all our problems. Greed is the #1 evil in our society. Canada already did away with corporate campaign contributions. So should we.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)live love laugh
(16,484 posts)Wednesdays
(23,136 posts)this Supreme Court will strike it down in a heartbeat.
lostinhere
(78 posts)so the Supreme Court doesn't have a say.
Wednesdays
(23,136 posts)Yeah, that'll happen.
betsuni
(29,295 posts)lostinhere
(78 posts)I'm concerned about unexpected consequences.
First: I have NOT read the bill, so I may be talking out my 4th point of contact.
IF the bill states denies corporations constitutional rights (see Rep Jayapal's quote in the 2nd paragraph of OP), then ALL parts of the constitution don't apply. Settled law concerning the Interstate Commerce Clause, the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, and the 6th Amendment's Right to a Jury Trial would need to be relitigated. I don't know the possible impact, maybe one of the legal eagles can weigh in.
This may be a narrowly constructed bill that doesn't have any impact outside of elections, but given Congress's history of causing unintended consequences, I am not hopeful.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)These are people who think the Pentagon Papers case was wrongly decided, and that the government has the right to tell publishers, TV networks and film producers what they can and cant say.
Most important First Amendment cases involved corporations, not individual persons.
It also means Democratic Underground LLC does not have the right to publish this website.
onenote
(46,228 posts)you haven't noticed
1. Interstate Commerce Clause- yahoos taking buying their guns in another state and from another
state
2. 14th Amendment- Mexican American's being sent back to Mexico, a country they don't know
(naturalized: having become established in a region where it is not
indigenous.)
3. 6th Amendment- African American's with all white juries not just in the past but in the present.
We all know these are just a few examples. And that is not to say what your post suggest is wrong because, it is right "I don't know the possible impact, maybe one of the legal eagles can weigh in." Let's stay on our toes and rise as the level of corruption is found.
dlk
(13,342 posts)Theres a difference
rubbersole
(11,277 posts)Dark money and disinformation are the norm. Democracy won't last if that doesn't change.
Meadowoak
(6,606 posts)The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Money is running the show not the citizens.
cos dem
(944 posts)Boomerproud
(9,363 posts)Will this just do down the rabbit hole?
Samrob
(4,298 posts)they commit crimes against real people.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Not just prevent school libraries from carrying them. Ban them from even being published.
If companies have "no rights under the Constitution", then a law banning a publisher from printing and releasing specific books or types of books would be 100% constitutional, no First Amendment violation. And that extends to all forms of media. Movies, podcasts, and, yes...websites. Like DU.
Also, no Fourth Amendment protection. Hope you enjoy warrantless raids of Planned Parenthood and seizure of their records in red states. Because, again, "Planned Parenthood" as an entity does not have any constitutional protections.
Not to mention that this amendment says, "The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment." Under that, you would have no right to donate money to DU. And Republicans could even criminalize that. Under this amendment, there would be no constitutional violation.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)But poor execution.
Individuals do not give up their rights when they band together in any kind of organization. Activist groups, newspapers and yes, even corporations have first amendment rights.
A much better idea would be a more narrowly focused campaign finance amendment exempting spending limits from constitutional protection for both individuals and groups.
hydrolastic
(549 posts)This will be a huge step.
garybeck
(10,086 posts)Nt
moondust
(21,352 posts)Money is property that is owned and traded.
garybeck
(10,086 posts)Speech is something that everybody has an equal amount of. Everyone has one mouth. You can speak one word at a time.
Money on the other hand is not something that everyone has an equal amount of.
Therefore they are not the same thing. Not even close.
moondust
(21,352 posts)I've always suspected the old fat cats of the GQP, i.e. Carnegies, Rockefellers, Kochs, Waltons, etc., wanted their fortunes to give them not just a big financial advantage but a big political advantage as well. John Roberts & Co. were happy to oblige. It has severely corrupted the political system. I seldom hear of dark money problems in European and other democracies that are smart enough to know money is not speech.
oasis
(53,986 posts)Kennah
(14,578 posts)Kennah
(14,578 posts)"Persons referenced in the 14th Amendment are only those who are human persons"
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.