Wolf-PAC to fight Corporate Personhood

[LongTomH]

Cenk Uyger announced to formation of a new political organization at Occupy Wall Street yesterday. Wolf-PAC is being organized to work for a constitutional amendment to fight against the idea of corporate personhood - the pernicious legal fiction that's allowed corporations to make unlimited contributions to politicians under the rubric of "First Amendment" rights.

Our politicians are bought. Everyone knows it. Conservatives know it. Liberals know it. The Democrats are bought. The Republicans are bought. They don’t represent us. They represent their corporate donors who fund their campaigns and promise them well paying jobs after they leave office. We have taxation without representation. Our democracy is in serious trouble.

So what can we do to regain our ability to make our votes count and take back our democracy? We have to concentrate all of our resources into one single attack – making sure we take corporate money out of politics. The only way to do that is to bypass the corporate owned Congress and the Supreme Court – and pass a Constitutional amendment. We must pass an amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians.

The objective of Wolf PAC will be to raise money and raise an army for the sole purpose of passing this amendment. We need a Constitutional revolution to get unlimited corporate money out of politics. Please join us and help retake our democracy.

Their proposed 28th Amendment reads as follows:

Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.

[valerief]

1. Maybe all we need is for a court clerk to declare corporations are not people.

And then get a judge to cite that.

That's how it started in the first place.

[LongTomH]

2. Actually, the 'backstory' of corporate personhood is a bit more complicated.

There was a corrupt 19th Century Supreme Court justice named Stephen Field who engineered that decision.

Read more here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=632029&mesg_id=632029

[valerief]

13. Well, the court reporter made it happen and the courts subsequently cited the error as precedent. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

3. Go Cenk TYT Army time to mount up.

[jwirr]

4. That is something that would really help take our elections back.

Go TYT

[Lionessa]

6. The amendment shouldn't be written to focus on elections as it is, but

should focus on forcing corporations to stay in their place of non-personhood in all regards.

[jwirr]

8. Yes, I agree with that because they just plain are NOT persons. To

say so in any context is wrong.

[Lionessa]

5. I like the idea but the actual Amendment sucks big ones and needs to be

better.

Are we making an amendment about Corporations or elections. Pick one, this trying to roll them into each other is garbage because it gives the impression that the only place they aren't going to be considered persons is on election issues. If we simply focus on a very strongly worded "corporations do not and will never have the protections, freedoms, or considerations of personhood." Then there's all kinds of things that will be stopped, like we could then make laws saying that insurance can only be issued to persons, this would stop the corporations from taking out secret life insurance on their employees. Or we can then make laws that say only persons can contribute to public schools, and end the constant brand advertising kids are exposed to in schools these days, ... and so on.

Great idea Cenk but I really would think you could have considered the amendment wording better.

[Initech]

7. Agreed - the wording definitely needs to be better.

[rhett o rick]

11. I agree. I bet he gets some legal help before it goes very far. nm

[musiclawyer]

12. Better yet

"corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerhsips and all other organizations, legally recognized or not under the laws of any nation, territory, or state or local agency, formal or informal, and /or for profit or non-profit, shall not and shall never have the rights, privileges, protections, freedoms, or considerations of any american citizen, natural born individual, and or personhood."

That my friends gets you one person, one vote and gets money out of politics.

[Lionessa]

14. I don't like something about your wording, but you're totally correct that

it should be any entity that isn't a person, ie LLC LLP Union orgs, Pac orgs.

So yeah, I agree expand the scope to include all other organizations & entities not specifically one human person.

I guess we could define a person as an entity with a heartbeat and human DNA, but then Cheney wouldn't count anymore, tee hee.

[LongTomH]

17. Move to Amend has been working to get an amendment that's more specific about corporate personhood

http://movetoamend.org/

There is probably a local chapter in your city. I think a lot of people active in Move-to-Amend will also support Wold-PAC.com. I saw the name of one of the leaders of KC's Move-to-Amend chapter as someone who 'liked' the Wolf-PAC.com announcement.

[hlthe2b]

9. Is this who is sending all the "Run with the Wolfies" emails?

I don't use facebook, but I've gotten four of these emails today... :shrug:

Good on Cenk...

[Ikonoklast]

10. And have the CEO of any corporation held out as the personification of the corporation.

When the corporation breaks a law, the CEO will do the time.

[Lionessa]

15. I don't agree because corporations can't break the law, that takes

human instigation, so it should be whomever instigated the fraud, scam, illegality. In rare cases, the CEO could be set up unfairly in such as you define.

[Ikonoklast]

18. Sucks to be him, then.

He can prove his innocence in court if set up.

[Lionessa]

19. Wow, and you claim to be a Dem? He has to prove his innocence? WTF

Remind me to entirely discount any of your opinions from now on.

Anyone who thinks a CEO or anyone should be considered guilty and have to prove his innocence ... Wow, just wow.

So far today on DU I've read one person say people should not be allowed to speak and here innocence should have to be proved.

Did the links to FR and DU get hacked in the night?

[Ikonoklast]

20. If he was SET UP, as you said, he could prove otherwise.

You implied his being found guilty, I stated he can prove his innocence.

Over-react much defending your cherished corporations?

[Lionessa]

21. Please find anywhere that I've defended a corporation, it was an inidividual's right to " innocent

until proven guilty."

Type carelessly much?

[Ikonoklast]

24. I see you've never been a defendant in this country

If you are accused of a crime and indicted, and let the prosecutor present evidence of that guilt, you better be goddamn sure your legal counsel is able to prove otherwise, or you'll be convicted.

If everyone is innocent until proven guilty, why are there innocent people in prison?

[Lionessa]

25. Being treated as though they are guilty until proven innocent, as you seem to promote.

Which is exactly my point. I don't find folks thinking that's just fine as having Democratic values.

[mmonk]

16. Love the name.

We're an NC State family. Instead of Go Pack, I guess it's Go Pac!

[Uncle Joe]

22. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, LongTomH.:thumbsup:

[Bandit]

23. Wolf Pack