New York City Council Passes Resolution Opposing Corporate Personhood

The New York City Council symbolically passed a resolution Wednesday opposing "corporate personhood." Resolution 1172 formally expressed disapproval of the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which declared that corporations have the same first amendment rights as people.

The bill, which urges Congress to take action against corporate personhood, was sponsored by councilmembers Brad Lander, Melissa Mark-Viverito and Steve Levin, all members of the Progressive Caucus. After the vote, the Caucus released a statement, which read in part:

"As our support of this resolution demonstrates, restoring confidence in government and strengthening democratic participation is a core principle of the Progressive Caucus. We believe that corporations should not share the same rights as people, that unlimited and unreported corporate donations meant to sway the electoral process should not be considered freedom of speech, and that the government should regulate the raising and spending of money by corporations intended to influence elections. We cannot allow corporate money to manipulate our democracy."

Occupy Wall Street's New York General Assembly voted to support the resolution. Corporate personhood has been a target of Occupy since the movement began in September.

The non-binding resolution passed along party lines with 41 yes-votes from Democrats, five no-votes from all five Council Republicans and one abstention from Democrat Peter Vallone.

Speaking at the hearing, Councilman Eric Ulrich (R-Queens) spoke against the resolution, but was nearly drowned out by the boos and hisses of Occupy Wall Street protesters in attendance, The Gotham Gazette reports. "Corporations are people," he said. "All their money goes back to the people."

The New York City Council joins a growing list of local governments across the US who have passed similar resolutions, including Los Angeles, Albany, Boulder and Oakland.

 

 

Comments

[lambdin1]

01:57 PM on 01/10/2012

Ouch! From Montana to New York people are calling the USSC stupid! Of course when you are omnipotent it does not matter! Can anyone say ayatollha?!?

[Cory Jack]

08:00 PM on 01/09/2012

Good going New York City council! 99% of the country AND the Supreme Court of the Great State of Montana agree wholeheartedly!

[William J Unverferth Sr]

10:51 AM on 01/08/2012

Why should groups of individuals not have free speech like an individual?

[Cory Jack]

08:10 PM on 01/09/2012

I have no problem with that. But why should "groups of individuals" have MORE free speech than an individual?

[kberly2005]

05:49 PM on 01/15/2012

Absolutely! This country is so messed up. Take the money out of the equasion and it's fair game for everyone! Why should anyone not deserve a fair shake at anything? After all, this is America folks!

[cs2pr us]

07:31 AM on 01/07/2012

I too think only living citizens should have equality under the law. We need an intentional political mass movement, like occupy wall street, but with the structure needed to be effective.

We need a declaration of re-independence, like or similar to this one:
http://cs2pr.us/Re-1776.html
Rich Stevenson, Green Candidate for OH1 US Congress.

[GranE]

07:07 PM on 01/06/2012

If Corporations are people, then we should all be corporations. If everyone incorporated the IRS would be busy wouldn't they? But we could take all the tax advantages we are entitled to as a corporation. We can deduct our operating expenses and pay tax on what's left or open an account in the Cayman Islands like Mitt, and pay tax on what we keep here. Then we could take a vacation to visit our money each year.

Citizens United was a set-up to start with and it will reek havoc as long as it is allowed to stand. Good for the Cities, States and good for Occupy Wall Street who are refusing to accept this farce. If people, especially young people don't get this overturned now it never will be and you will have to live under this regime your entire lives. US history shows it takes approximately 50 years for a movement to start turning things around. It took women over 100 years to get the vote. Keep up the good work and don't let up!

[Brant Kelsey]

04:50 PM on 01/06/2012

Founding fathers recognized early on the need to regulate and diminish influence of Corporations: The problem is not a new one. Early 19 century law, in the Us greatly restrained the "rights" of corporations: These regulations, of course, for many reasons have been rendered pretty much useless over the last 130 years. Starting with late 1800 California case Santa Clara vs Railroad.

But even as late as the 1950's a few regulations still on the books, say in Wisconsin, read something like this. Corporations were not allowed to exist into perpetuity, they instead had a finite life span, typically contained in charters of 10 or 20 years: much like the early Central Banks of the US. Corporations were prevented from owning, or being subsidiaries of another Corporation. Corporation "ownership" was restricted to the actual "footprint" required to perform their operations. Just to name a few. The expansive corrupting empire building of Corporations now has a following: typically found in the .001%. SEE Mitt Romney.

[Brant Kelsey]

04:39 PM on 01/06/2012

How interesting: That this is likely the least read piece on HuffPo.......and yet those who have bought into the venom espoused by MSM, themselves the mouth piece of War, Banking, and wholly owned subsidiaries of "the problem" stay away from this story: Those clamoring for some salient expression from the "movement", myself included, finally get a glimpse through this resolution: Corporations are not people, and do not have the attendant rights as people. See 4th and 14th Amendments. That the co-opting of a representative democracy by Corporations needs to be ended. So as I intuited early on, right thinking people, who would appreciate a governing institution that indeed is subservient to the will/want of the People: By necessity needs to be unfettered from the wholesale purchase of Policy by Corporate lobbying of every ilk. Be it Pharma, HMO's, Banking, or any manifestation of Global Industry. Separation of Business and State. Simple concept, if affected, has a poignent return. The return of Government to its rightful place. Within the Province of the People.

[soma77]

02:19 PM on 01/06/2012

The Supreme Court of the United States needs to be changed to the Supreme Court of the Republican Party. The Supreme Court for the 1% and by the 1%.

[rjhuntington]

01:21 PM on 01/06/2012

Corporations are privileged entities, existing only by virtue of a government franchise for which a fee must be paid. The officers and directors of a corporation enjoy certain legal immunity. It is not a right, it is privilege.

Privilege is the opposite of rights. Rights cannot be regulated or taxed. Privilege is properly the object of government regulation and is subject to taxation. The two are diametrically opposed.

It is impossible to reasonably come to a legal conclusion that corporations have the right to free speech. They do not. It is entirely legal and proper for corporate speech to be tightly regulated and even for the corporation to be fined and officers jailed upon conviction of corporate lying.

To treat corporations as if they had rights like natural people is a mockery of democracy. It is wholly inappropriate and the situation must be corrected.

[Kimiko Austin-Rijs]

12:22 PM on 01/06/2012

Greed knows no bounds. The US is not the democracy that it pretends to be.

[Rick Staggenborg]

11:55 AM on 01/06/2012

It is indeed ironic that the Fourteenth Amendment that written to free former slaves has been used by a fascist Supreme Court to make economic slaves of us all.

Corporate personhood is based on the due process clause of the 14th that says in essence "Any person born or naturalized in the United States" has the same rights. If corporations are people, most of the Fortune 500 should be tried and sentenced to death for murder, treason and other crimes against the people of the United States.

None of the current amendments proposed in Congress will really deal with the problems, however. Here is why: http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/p/there-are-many-amendments-that-have.html

[CivilDebate10]

11:43 AM on 01/06/2012

Question for all you liberals: Do you think that the NY Times should receive first amendment protection? If so, you are saying that a corporation deserves first amemdment protection. If you say that the protection only applies to the human reporters and executives, well then, the government would be able to levy fines against the corporation for publishing "bad" news. Would that be OK?

[Alpha Nerd]

12:59 PM on 01/06/2012

You're bending words. The NY Times receives first amendment protection because it is a newspaper. The problem is companies like Koch Industries, or Microsoft just to pull a big company out of the hat, from using their vast amounts of money to influence elections that can put people in positions of power who will help corporations get away with whatever they want. Plus, if a newspaper endorses someone you know who is endorsing who. With citizens united though, a corporation can back a candidate and put ads out supporting them or bashing their opponent, and they don't even have to say that it's them endorsing the ad.

[cs2pr us]

08:02 AM on 01/07/2012

Under what law? It would have to be a law passed by persons, our representatives. Corps can be regulated, not fined indiscriminately. Your what if scenario has no basis in probability.

Freedom of speech would be confined to the publisher, a person. He/she would decide on the content published. The government would have no basis in law for a claim. Govt's or Corps would not have a standing in court to sue a person. A person could only be effected by civil or criminal law. The world of corporate non-personhood would be vastly different from the current world of corporate dominance.
Rich Stevenson

[leyvadaniel]

10:43 AM on 01/06/2012

If corporations are people, I want to see their birth certificate.

[neolow]

07:40 PM on 01/06/2012

If corporations are people, isn't that birtherism?

[leyvadaniel]

11:43 AM on 01/07/2012

If that is the case, so be it. The important thing is to give proof that corporations are people, which is impossible from an ontological point of view.

[mistergg69]

11:57 PM on 01/05/2012

OBAMA 2012

[brklynivn]

11:13 PM on 01/05/2012

This needs to happen on the state level and the state supreme court needs to clarify this.