I Just Came from the Opening Session of Move to Amend's Portland Convergence - This is Important.

[dballance]

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 03:16 PM - Edit history (4)

Move to Amend (MTA) is an organization that formed to add a 28th amendment to the constitution to undo some of the damage the courts have done by treating corporations as if they were human beings. The goal is to build grass-roots support for the amendment because we all pretty much know our corporate-owned politicians won't be doing anything that might endanger their campaign contributions or those fact-finding and trade negotiation trips they take on corporate jets and get bank-rolled by corporations.

So it's simple. The amendment declares that artificial entities, such as corporations (C-Corps, LLC's, Non-Profits) or any legally created entities, have no rights under the Constitution. It also declares that money is not free speech. The idea is that the government needs to be pushed back on and that the government should be accountable to "We the People" as living, breathing humans and not beholding to immortal corporations. That ought to be something libertarians and even Tea Baggers could support. We the People in control rather than "big government" and faceless corporations.

Here's the text:

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

For more on MTA here's their site: https://movetoamend.org/

On Edit: The amendment would remove corporations, non-profits, and union's ability to claim they had free speech rights or equal protection rights and other rights that are considered to be rights of natural persons under the Constitution. It would not prohibit them from donating to candidates or causes or spending on same. It would simply put a stake in the ground to declare that rights extended to humans are not extended to artificial entities. Although the first ten amendments are commonly referred to as the "Bill of Rights" they are not separate and apart from the Constitution. They are amendments to the Constitution and, therefore, part of the Constitution. Nowhere in the text of the first ten amendments is such a legal document called the "Bill of Rights" mentioned or acknowledged to exist. That's because it doesn't exist in legal terms. The people who wrote those first ten amendments did not entitle them the "Bill of Rights." They proposed them as articles to amend the Constitution in order to clarify the original articles of the constitution and further restrict the powers of the government. You can read the preamble here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html. To think of everything in the first 10 amendments as rights granted is not accurate. This confusion comes from the use of the term "Bill of Rights."

So it's perfectly fine to read the 1st Amendment and consider the freedom of speech clause a right that applies to individual humans while at the same time reading the freedom of the press clause to be a limit on the government's ability to suppress free information flow through the press. Just as it's perfectly fine to read the rest of the Constitution and believe that not all parts of it apply to every situation.

On Edit 2: I dont' know who said it but here's an applicable quote:
Democracy is not served by one party having a gazillion watt TV or radio station to broadcast their message (think FOX) while the opposing party has only a soapbox on the corner from which to broadcast theirs.

[defacto7]

1. Instead of...

"as a result of their money"

it may be better said,

"as a result of their wealth or political status"

Just a thought....

The word "money" is ambiguous. It doesn't mean every control method that is of value.

[dballance]

2. Interesting Point. I'll Bring it up tomorrow.

I'm sure they had lots of lawyers work on the language and at the same time tried to keep it simple and straightforward. One of the speakers tonight was an attorney on their board I believe.

I don't think you can ever write a law that some enterprising team of corporate attorneys can't find a way to try to twist.

[jberryhill]

21. "on their board"?

What, they have a board of directors?

How is Move To Amend organized?

If they are a corporation or LLC, then we may tear a hole in the space time continuum here.

[dballance]

32. Again, You're Getting It Wrong. There's no Desire to Lock out Corps Completely.

Yes, MTA is organized as a 501c3 so your donations will be tax-deductible. But MTA is not proposing an all or nothing amendment. They're not proposing we prohibit corporations, non-profits and unions from participating in the political process or donating money to candidates or campaigns. They simply want it to be constitutional for government to set some limits. Until the Citizens United ruling some states had campaign contribution limits in place and government was free to set limits. Somehow all those artificial entities seemed to make it just fine before that ruling. GE, IBM, Ford, GM and other long-time US corporations certainly seemed to be able to prosper by focusing on their business without the protection of Citizens United.

[jberryhill]

36. Unfortunately, I can read

You went to a meeting organized by a corporation.

Under this amendment, a corporation has no right to organize a peaceable assembly.

Words have meanings.

[dballance]

46. I didn't get a chance to work this in today. But I haven't forgotten about it.

During one of the sessions a facilitator did discuss the process of writing the amendment some and mentioned, as I had guessed, several lawyers and constitutional scholars were involved in drafting it. I don't know if it was you or another person who made the point that we should never underestimate corporations and their lawyers' ability to twist any language but I think that's correct. There's no such thing as a fool-proof amendment that won't be bent and contorted by some enterprising lawyer to effect a positive outcome for their client - and, of course them too.

[former9thward]

3. This would mean unions would lose their rights also.

Don't think they would like that.

[dballance]

4. Unions Don't Have the Rights That Corporations Have.

One of the speakers addressed that issue specifically. In 125 years of the judicial system granting rights to corporations only one case has been about unions. Yes, the corporate bodies of unions would be subject to the same rules as every other corporation - as they are now. The fact of the matter though, is unions are not the real problem or the organizations that are dumping hidden millions upon millions into the electoral process through Super-PACs. It's the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and their ilk who have more money than the unions. The unions, whose membership and power is far diminished from what it once was, should consider supporting this. In their current state they can't wage an effective battle against ALEC and the Chamber of Commerce people. Especially if their stated goal is to protect every individual worker; then unions should support this attempt to level the playing field.

[former9thward]

5. Unions spent $141 million last year on the election.

They would lose those rights. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/

[dreamnightwind]

7. Sounds like a very god deal to me

The corporate interests give much more than that. Individual union members could still donate, subject to individual limits.

I support this amendment. I would say, though, that the wording needs to be air-tight. It's going to be a huge lift to get it passed, and it would suck if there was a way for corporations to slip around the language.

[jberryhill]

9. Question

Should Nixon have had the power to stop The New York Times Corp. from publishing the Pentagon Papers? Yes or no?

[dreamnightwind]

11. You're equating

stopping the publishing of the Pentagon Papers with something in this proposed amendment? Go ahead, make your case, should be interesting.

Edit to add: ok re-read the amendment, I see where you're coming from, and it is interesting. No rights of citizens, such as free speech, for corporations. That does seem problematic, good question. Anyone care to elaborate on this?

Money is not speech, that's part II. Corporations are not people, that's part I and is where the question you raised would apply. On its face it seems correct, they're not people. Is Part II enough without Part I? What about unlimited editorial content by a media conglomerate, throwing all of their considerable resources behind an issue or a cause? Should that also be protected? Some interesting consequences for sure, I'll refrain from drawing a conclusion until I learn more about them, thanks.

[jberryhill]

13. That's only the tip of the iceberg

The Fifth Amendment keeps the government from taking away property which is cooperatively owned by its tenants - typically by being shareholders of the ownership entity.

A lot of family farms are organized as close corporations or other forms of business entity.

Are you okay with any business being searched and having its assets seized for any reason? For example, if the government wants to drop in on MoveOn.org, go through their files and take their computers, that's okay?

[dreamnightwind]

14. What changes would you make to the proposed amendment?

Just curious.

[jberryhill]

18. To accomplish what goal?

If the point is to bar Constitutional rights to any legal entity other than natural persons, the language is fine.

It is a natural consequence that mass media, or even tiny media like this website, will be subject to government control or approval. That works out okay, as long as you agree with the government.

It'll get rid of a lot of porn, that's for sure.

All that land held by private conservation organizations? Boom - new interstates, shopping centers and parking lots. Done.

[dreamnightwind]

22. To the goal of

government serving the interests of the people rather than the interests of corporations. I don't think they're the same, do you?

[jberryhill]

23. What anyone thinks is irrelevant

None of the Constitutional Amendments comes with a handy guide to "what we were trying to do".

The consequences of the proposed language are not reducible to a minor drafting problem of some kind.

I'd like to see a lot of things happen in and to our political system. Few of those things are likely to be effected by drinking what the man in the Dr. Fixit's Cure-All wagon is selling.

[jberryhill]

16. Let me ask a simpler and more pointed question

I sincerely would like you to think about and answer this one:

Should the government be able to stop the production and distribution of a movie, based on the movie having political content?

[dballance]

34. NO, Not Necessarily. The Amendment Doesn't Do That.

The amendment doesn't prohibit corporations from donating money or spending money on political candidates or causes. It only makes it constitutional for the government to place limits on that spending.

[jberryhill]

37. That's already constitutional

There already are limits on what corporations, or individuals, can donate to the campaigns of political candidates.

[dballance]

52. Seems Rather Paltry Compared to the $658 Million Spent By Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Sector

Labor spent $141 million in 2011-2012 according to the linked site. It ranked number 8 out of the top 10. The combined total of the top 7 groups (made up of single-issue interest groups, corporations, associations, etc.) was over $3 trillion. That's trillion with a "T".

[former9thward]

53. You are leaving out a big number.

Which does not get counted. That is the people from unions who work in campaigns. Those are worth hundreds of millions if they were being paid. I doubt the Koch brothers are sitting around in some campaign office working the phones.

[dballance]

54. I Don't See How Individual Volunteers are Relevant to the Argument.

Every campaign has individual volunteers. No one is forcing these people to volunteer - not the unions, not the GOP, not the Democratic Party. The topic at hand is how much money artificial entities spend. Not how many volunteers they recruit and use in a campaign.

[cprise]

6. K&R

[jberryhill]

8. Down goes US v. New York Times Corp.

Farewell Hustler Inc. v Falwell.

This will upend a lot of precedent indeed.

[dballance]

10. I Think Those Two Cases Could Have Ignored "Free Speech" and Been Ruled as Freedom of the Press

The text of the First Amendment is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I suspect that if the free speech clause were not available to the court then they could have fallen back on the freedom of the press clause. In fact, I believe US vs. NY Times did hinge on the freedom of the press clause and not the free speech clause.

[jberryhill]

12. Read the proposed language

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

Either you didn't read that, or you do not understand it.

Under that language, The New York Times Corp. does not have "freedom of the press", because it is not a natural person.

It doesn't make sense to say that one clause of the First Amendment would somehow apply to a corporation when what you are promoting says that NO right under the entire constitution can be claimed by a corporation.

And do you include other media in "press". TV networks, radio stations, and this website owned and operated by Democratic Underground LLC?

Do you include the ACLU? Planned Parenthood?

[dballance]

29. One of the Points People Fail to Realize is the Amendment is Just the Beginning

j-b-h, I think you're missing the point by arguing something that isn't really there. No one is saying that corporations, non-profits and unions will be completely prohibited from donating money to political campaigns. Or that they'll be prohibited from continuing to do the business for which their corporate charter was issued. What they're saying is that our courts have made corporations equal to living, breathing humans and that's wrong. Money as speech didn't become part of law until the 1970's. Corporations and the press didn't have the rights of people at the inception of our republic and they operated just fine. It wasn't until 75 to 100 years after the Constitution was ratified that courts began granting corporations the rights of human people.

The freedom of the press clause can easily be read as not an inalienable human right of individuals but as limit on the government's power to suppress information flow. The first 10 Amendments are referred to as the "Bill of Rights" but they're amendments to the Constitution and, therefore, part of the Constitution. Notice that the amendment language doesn't refer to a "Bill of Rights" because it's not really a separate legal document from the Constitution since the amendments have been ratified. No one has said, nor have the courts ruled, that everything in the Bill of Rights is about the freedoms of human individuals. So one can read the freedom of the press clause with the same eye one might read the commerce clause. No one will argue that corporations cannot bring actions against the government when they feel that legislation violates the commerce clause so why would the freedom of the press clause be different? The freedom of speech clause is different. Corporations cannot speak as humans do because they do not have mouths and they are not corporeal. So the courts substituted money for a mouth for them many, many years after the Constitution and its original ten amendments were ratified.

Courts have long included radio, TV and some web sites in the broad category of "the press." Would I say that DU is part of the press. No, not really. It doesn't seem to have any of the traditional trappings of the press. It's a discussion board where individuals come to post their free speech. So while it may not be covered by the freedom of the press clause then I'd bet it could be covered by freedom of speech because suppressing DU would be limited individuals' right to free speech.

Would the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and other organizations like them be included? I don't see why not. They're 501c3 corporations so they're artificial entities. But again, no one is saying they won't be able to donate money or participate in political activities. What we want to do is be able to set some limits on corporations about what they can do and spend. As it is currently, corporations have money as free speech and the big multi-nationals have a hell of a lot more money than the ACLU and Planned parenthood. Would you be opposed to legislation limiting how much corporations can give to campaigns which would include the non-profit corporations? Right now that can't be done because money is free speech. So the large corporations and Super-PACs are free to drop hundreds of millions of dollars in elections. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood and unions don't have that kind of resources and they're not the problem. Limiting campaign contributions by corporations to just the several millions range rather than the unlimited range will help level the playing field.

[jeff47]

19. Your proposal eliminates freedom of the press.

Remember, only people have rights under your proposal. So a newspaper, which is a corporation, does not.

[Laelth]

40. That may be partially true.

But the corporation's employees would continue to enjoy their Constitutional rights, even if the corporation does not. Were this amendment to be ratified (which is unlikely), the government could, theoretically, pass a law restricting the speech of the corporation that controls the newspaper. I hear you. That's a real risk, but the newspaper's reporters could not be so censored. So, what damage could the government do, really, if all it can do is silence the corporation but not its employees?

-Laelth

[jeff47]

42. Doesn't matter if the people do still have rights. They rely on the paper to get the story out.

So the people can write whatever they want. They just can't publish their articles if the government says "no" because it's the corporation that publishes them.

Blogs? Again, write whatever you want. But your ISP can't publish them without government permission - again, it's a non-person involved in actually transmitting the story. Even if you own your own server, you've got an upstream ISP that's a corporation.

The first amendment's rights need to cover both people and companies. What you need in an amendment is to declare political speech and political donations are not covered by the first amendment. After all, Sheldon Adelson spending hundreds of millions in an election is just as bad as a corporation spending hundreds of millions in an election.

[Laelth]

43. I see your point.

I fully agree that overturning the Supreme Court's ruling that money=speech would be useful and more limited in scope than the amendment proposed above.

-Laelth

[jberryhill]

44. Whoa

"an amendment is to declare political speech and political donations are not covered by the first amendment"

Um. Isn't it the point of the First Amendment to protect political speech first and foremost?

[jeff47]

49. I was inarticulate

Should've left it at "political donations". I was referring to the SOCUTS's "money = speech" definition.

[jberryhill]

50. Actually, the court didn't say that

Citizens's United was going to make and publish a movie using money which had been donated to it. Because the movie was pointedly political, CU's production of the movie was categorized as an "in kind" donation.

The facts of the CU case have nothing to do with anyone making contributions to the campaign of any politician, and had nothing to do with whether "money=speech". It was really kind of the other way around, if anything, since it equated "making a movie" with "donating money to a candidate".

Which part of the written decision do you most disagree with?

[HiPointDem]

15. who funds move to amend?

[dballance]

17. Excellent Question.

I just went to the website and it doesn't list major donors. I'll have to ask tomorrow who any major donors are.

[HiPointDem]

26. while i'm in sympathy with the apparent goals, never underestimate the duplicity of the ruling

class.

just as whatever amendment it was was supposed to give rights to slaves but wound up giving rights to corporations (can't remember the history exactly and too lazy to look it up), this could wind up taking rights from unions & similar workers' entities while leaving the rights of rich individuals largely intact. it's the rich individuals who are the money behind all their corporate bodies anyway, while behind workers' bodies are mostly just workers, who would not have any comparable power as individuals.

[dballance]

31. The 14th Amendment is the one you're thinking of.

If I'm not mistaken Mississippi just ratified that last year - finally.

[Laelth]

41. Wise, HiPointDem. Quite wise. n/t

-Laelth

[jberryhill]

20. I hesitate to ask...

But is Move To Amend organized as a non-profit to which donations may be made?

Because if so, I think my head will explode.

[HiPointDem]

24. ironic, wot?

[jberryhill]

25. I'm in the wrong business

I should just get off my ass, start a religion, and make some real money.

[HiPointDem]

27. signs of the times point to that as a good career move. assuming you're the charismatic type.

i'm not, unfortunately.

[jberryhill]

28. I don't think it matters

Figure... If you could get 1000 people to pay you $10 a month for your monthly "spiritual insights" newsletter, that's not too shabby.

[HiPointDem]

30. yes, but some kind of charisma or connections is needed to get to that stage of visibility where

people might be willing to pay.

or else some kind of exceptional marketing strategy.

[jberryhill]

35. A good website

[dballance]

45. Here is the funding answer. No Major Corporate Donors.

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 02:24 PM - Edit history (4)

The largest donation to MTA so far has been from the Levinson Foundation: http://www.levinsonfoundation.org (click on Recent Grants to see grantees). There are no corporate sponsors or donors - as in no major corporations or Super-PACs. The rest of their funding is from individual contributions which average $40. The list of people registered with MTA is just under 300,000. That's not the number of donors. It includes anyone who wants to get notifications and newsletters and people who want to volunteer.

It was a good, and relevant question. I'm pleased with the answer.

On Edit: The Levinson Foundation's site states their largest grants are $30,000. So, even if they contributed that much to MTA that is a not an amount that would buy undue influence. Also, I've worked for a non-profit, grant-making organization like the Levnison Foundation. Grants are awarded on the strength of the applicant's grant application and, perhaps, interviews with the director/officers of an organization. It really depends on the size of the grant. After a grant is awarded there is no participation by the granting organization in the management of those funds. The grantee is trusted to use the funds in the manner in which they described in their application. Again, that would vary base on the size of a grant and if grants have some annual funding component. In the case of large grants that might be funded over multiple years it wouldn't be unusual for a granting organization to do audits.

For a $30,000 one-time grant it would be a "write the check and walk away" grant.

On Edit 3: While the Levinson Foundation is, itself, a corporation I didn't think I needed to point out the difference between small 501c3 non-profit organizations like the Levinson Foundation and larger organizations like GE, Monsanto, BofA, GM, Exxon, etc. The large entities I mentioned pay little or no taxes yet have undue influence on our government and law due to their money and lobbying. A grant-making organization like the Levinson Foundation is not corrupting our elections and laws with lobbying.

[jberryhill]

48. Wrong again

The Levinson Foundation IS a corporation.

There is no other donor information to substantiate your claims.

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. K&R!

[Berlum]

38. Thank you DB

A very good start. Nattering nabobs always show up, but this is starting an excellent discussion.

[Laelth]

39. I support the goals of MTA.

But I do not see a sufficient number of state legislatures ratifying this amendment.

-Laelth

[dballance]

51. A Nattering Nabob Finally Got me to Use the Ignore Member Feature

While I appreciate everyone's questions and comments there are some people who just can't be objective and have to be negative about everything. One such member has caused me to, after being here for over six years, use the Ignore Member function.

Constructive questions about funding and how the amendment will affect unions and non-profits are all very reasonable and things everyone has a right and a need to know. Whether or not you're going to support MTA's efforts they are trying to amend the US Constitution so you, as citizens, have a right to know about their motives and the influences on the organization - such as big-money corporations. I respect and support that. It's why I've tried to answer questions posted here.

I don't appreciate the negativity of some people who seem to just try to point out everything as a negative. Those people also try to paint an organization which is trying to pave the way to get big-money out of elections as being something other than the positive organization with actual change of our current system as their goal.

There have been many, many threads here on DU about how we need to get the big-money out of politics. Well, since SCOTUS has said money is free speech and corporations are people under our current Constitution there's really only one way to do that. Follow the processes set forth in that Constitution to amend it to take personhood away from corporations and to declare money is not speech. That's what MTA is doing.

I found it surprising to get so much negativity about this on this thread. It did seem to come from a single source though who is now on Ignore.