John Kerry: Amend The Constitution In Response To Citizens United Decision

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) wants to amend the Constitution to restrict the free speech rights of corporations after last week's landmark Supreme Court campaign finance ruling.

At a hearing on Tuesday, Kerry said that in the short term he wanted Congress to quickly pass countermeasures that would require corporations to get shareholder approval for political spending and prohibit spending by domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations and government contractors.

"But we may also need to think bigger," Kerry said. "I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals."

The first lawmaker to propose amending the Constitution was Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), who told the Huffington Post that she thought the Supreme Court's ruling was so broad that less sweeping measures wouldn't work.

"I think the Supreme Court has actually left us with no choice," she said. "We hoped the court would have had a little more of a mixed ruling that would have left us with some options."

The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 majority, held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the FEC could not restrict spending by corporations on advertisements for or against candidates during election season because, the court said, corporations have free speech rights as individuals under the Constitution. Before the ruling, corporate political money had to be funneled through political action committees, which have strict fundraising and spending limits.

A constitutional amendment is a huge long shot. It would require two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states for ratification. Even so, Kerry said the effort is already underway.

"Amending the Constitution is a serious endeavor and some of the sharpest minds in the country are working together right now to construct language for an amendment that would solve the problem and get to the heart of the issue," said Kerry. "I'm ready to work with them and with the activists it will take to get an amendment ratified."

Comments

[Henry Massingale]

12:48 PM on 02/07/2010

This is Constitution,Bill Of Rights and The Declaration of Independence. United under a United Foruma and it was placed as it is ,because a young man said, that these papers are only old stuff and he did not understand, because it is not tought what these Laws realy are as the Foundation of America.
I wish to say thank you to President Obama and the Obama Administration for being the first Government Officials that have created the first Anomaly, in all of U.S. History. Has this Health Care issues reached desperate measures by Government Officials offering money to Christians to pray for the sick, welllll.
This anomaly has grown beyond your control Mr. Obama, as over 173 million American People see for the first time the truth and lies , the good and bad within this Bill to Law. Thousands of Companies seek to move out of the U.S.A., or just close up shop, people are Boycotting this Bill to Law.
Henry Massingale
www.fascmovement.msite.com on google
page1. american dream official site

[ONEPROUDAMERICAN]

02:29 PM on 02/04/2010

I agree with Sundalecat. Limit everyone, including corporations to $2,000 total. Did Hanoi John care about this when he was running?

[cincymike]

01:49 PM on 02/04/2010

How about this Senator:

The words "person" or "people" used in the Constitution or amendments thereto shall include only natural individuals.

Short, sweet, done.

[goddessmother1]

03:15 AM on 02/13/2010

I agree. Just add the word "natural" before every mention of person or people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[SimplyAmazed]

11:06 PM on 02/03/2010

Here's a question for anyone who really knows... please don't answer if you are just guessing. I know many, many politically-oriented organizations are incorporated, such as the NAACP (1911) and ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc). First, if they are incorporated, does that make them corporations? Second, if corporations are restricted in their free speech, are these organizations going to be limited in the donations they pour into ads and campaigns? Everywhere I'm looking on line SEEMS to say that the "Inc" in these names legally defines them as corporations, but I'm not a lawyer, so I have my doubts.

I am not saying they should or should not be limited, and I am not equating these groups to private sector corporations, so please don't attack me as though I'm singling these groups out.

[GranE]

11:02 AM on 02/04/2010

Corporations are granted the right to conduct commerce in the state and U.S. through the Sec. of States' office in each state usually. I'm not a lawyer, just worked for them. The best place to start would be the IRS website since all corporations, both foriegn and domestic, fall under their umbrella. Non-profit corporations are set up for many different reasons such as "social welfare", primarily to escape paying income tax, and are not engaged in commerce. Citizens United was set up as a non-profit under 501 (c) (4) of the IRS code, which can be found at their website.

[dsws]

11:31 AM on 02/04/2010

"First, if they are incorporated, does that make them corporations?"

Yes. The ACLU points out that it is a corporation. The corporation in this court case, Citizens United, is an advocacy organization, not a for-profit.

"Second, if corporations are restricted in their free speech, are these organizations going to be limited in the donations they pour into ads and campaigns?"

Not since the court case, presumably. The decision is about "independent" expenditures, not explicit donations, so it doesn't overtly address that question. However, the text of the holding is insanely over-broad: it says you can't discriminate against corporations at all, in any matter having to do with "speech". That pretty clearly indicates that donation restrictions can't depend on corporate status either.

However, until Citizens United, issue-advocacy corporations have been subject to the same restrictions as for-profit corporations.

[elmoor]

02:13 PM on 02/03/2010

AMEN! Count me in, Mr. Kerry. Everyone should be afraid of this. We're just barely surviving the Big Money interests as it stands now (and perhaps we're already too far gone).

Corporations are NOT people. There can be a person without having a corporation-- but you cannot have a corporation without people.

Nuff said.

[goddessmother1]

03:47 AM on 02/13/2010

I lack trust in Kerry for several reasons.
He was a pro war candidate. His platform was that he could conduct Bush's wars better than Bush;
He is the senator making the most profit on war-profiteering companies;
He refused to use his excess campaign funds in 2004 to investigate the disputed ballots in Ohio where Ken Blackwell had a serious conflict of interest playing dual roles of Secretary of Voting and Leader of Ohio Republicans

[JePense]

11:45 AM on 02/03/2010

What most people forget - is the very idea of the American Democracy - was based on eliminating wealth and status from the political system.

In England, only the aristocracy and the corrupted wealthy had any rights to due process. All poor people were chattel and were imprisoned on whim.

When they founded America, they said the rights of the individual would be paramount and the poor would have equal footing before the court.

[BMcCue7]

12:20 PM on 02/03/2010

People should NOT forget these things.

[maggiee]

01:12 PM on 02/03/2010

People have forgotten. They need reminding. well done.

[JePense]

11:43 AM on 02/03/2010

YES, YES, YES.

Corporations as individuals? Preposterous.

This is the WORST SUPREME COURT EVER!

This chief justice will go down in history as the greatest setback to the constitution ever.

[bannorhill]

08:30 PM on 02/03/2010

Where does the constitution limit free speech to individuals?

Free speech is free speech.

Either Congress can limit or it can not. The first amendment says it can not.

[Dbos]

10:42 AM on 02/03/2010

Cant pass single payer health care because of corporate money imagine how much they'll spend to stop this.

[kokokahi]

09:48 AM on 02/03/2010

Amen. Thank you Mr. Kerry.

[Macready]

08:44 AM on 02/03/2010

thank you Senator Kerry . . go for it . . .

[omeo2013]

03:50 AM on 02/03/2010

Exactly what angle does Kerry's amendment take on this? You can't just amend the Constitution to say "Corporations can't spend freely in elections.". Couldn't the Supreme Court just say that that conflicts with the corporations right to free speech? We need an amendment saying either that corporations aren't people and don't have the same right to free speech or we need an amendment saying money doesn't equal free speech.

[plasma001]

07:40 AM on 02/03/2010

Couldn't the Supreme Court just say that that conflicts with the corporations right to free speech?

-Umm, no they can't... The way the constitution is set up, amendments override previous amendments. Amendments CAN'T be unconstitutional because they ARE the constitution...

That said, the Kerry amendment (if it were to pass) should apply to ALL organized groups, TO INCLUDE unions...

"We need an amendment saying either that corporations aren't people and don't have the same right to free speech.."
-FINE as long as UNIONS are included in that group of "non people"....

[capitalismisevil]

08:10 AM on 02/03/2010

I agree, I would actually support this and would insist that all elected officials in my district at state and national level support it...... as long as it included unions.

[Probus]

02:47 AM on 02/03/2010

Thank you Sen. Kerry and Rep. Edwards for taking on big corporations and the very wrong SCOTUS decision. Right now a constitutional amendment is the way to go. It's a long process but I think it can be done.

[spacetime]

02:42 AM on 02/03/2010

Let's not count on Kerry to do this alone. We don't need political grandstanding.

This is not a partisan issue. Republicans AND Democrats AND Independents must ALL UNITE together to rescind this treasonous supreme court ruling.

Who else is going to speak up for American Democracy?

Why aren't ALL elected officials outraged at this decision?

What are they ALL doing to fix this? We're talking about a National Security issue!

[Darren2Be]

02:23 AM on 02/03/2010

Consider this ..lets we be turned into Logos in a Loop

Then further consider:

Strutre:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1 The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, no corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation shall enjoy the rights of free speech and expression protected for the people by the First Amendment.

Section 2 Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity in public election activity.

Section 3. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/amendment

[plasma001]

07:44 AM on 02/03/2010

"Section 3. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press."

So MSNBC and Keith Olbermann (as corporations) can continue to spout as much as they want, but Ford and GM (big employers) may not run a commercial for a candidate who supports bringing jobs back to the US?

Corporations are corporations, be they Ford, MSNBC, FOX, SEIU or the UAW...

[Sundalecat]

07:43 PM on 02/03/2010

Yes I love MSNBC and Keith. A bunch of CEO's I could careless about crowding our airwaves. That would make me sick.

[Jon Dorian]

11:11 PM on 02/14/2010

"Section 1 The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy,"

Bad idea. I do not want the word "democracy" in any part of the constitution. That would be the first step in doing away with the electoral vote, which would lead to the largest populated four or five states telling the other states what kind of government we will have.

[crzy]

01:59 AM on 02/03/2010

Way to go Donna Edwards and John Kerry - make it so.