Defenders of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United and the ascendant corporate rights doctrine that underlies it must be getting nervous.
Why else would George Will resort to arguing, as he so outrageously does ("Taking a scythe to the Bill of Rights", May 6) that the bipartisan People's Rights Amendment I have introduced in the House is "comparable" to condoning infanticide?
A large majority of Americans believe that corporations exert too much influence on our daily lives and our political process. A Hart Research poll released last year found that nearly four in five (79 percent) of registered voters support passage of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Resolutions calling for such an amendment have passed in several states and cities across the country. Eleven state attorneys general have written to Congress demanding action.
We are already witnessing the corrosive effects of Citizens United: an election system awash in a sea of millions of dollars in unregulated money, drowning out the voices of individual citizens. Politicians are increasingly beholden to wealthy special interests. A multi-national oil company that doesn't like a particular member of Congress can now simply write a big, undisclosed check to "Americans for Apple Pie and Puppies" and watch the negative advertisements work their magic.
But the effects of the corporate rights doctrine go far beyond campaign finance. A Vermont law to require that milk products derived from cows treated with bovine growth hormone be labeled to disclose that information was struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. A federal judge has found that tobacco companies have a free speech right that prevents the government from requiring graphic warning labels on cigarettes. A pharmaceutical corporation has claimed that their corporate speech rights protect them from FDA rules prohibiting the marketing of a drug for "off-label" uses.
As Justice Stevens rightly noted in his dissent in Citizens United (and contrary to what Mr. Will would have us believe), the majority ruling was "a radical departure from what has been settled First Amendment Law." These corporate "rights" are relatively new, appearing in the last few decades. They overturn centuries of established jurisprudence and national consensus. The Supreme Court used to repeatedly affirm that the elected governments of the states and the nation could regulate corporations. Chief Justice John Marshall described the corporate entity as "an artificial being ... existing only in contemplation of law." No less an authority than James Madison viewed corporations as "a necessary evil" subject to "proper limitations and guards." Thomas Jefferson wished to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
There is nothing "originalist" about the corporate rights doctrine, and it is no mere accident that the first three words of the preamble to our Constitution are "We the People."
Mr. Will conjures up a nightmare scenario under the People's Rights Amendment under which "[n]ewspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations -- and most religious institutions" would be stripped of all constitutional rights. Wrong. Those rights were properly secure before the modern fabrication of the corporate rights doctrine and would continue to flourish. The people who make up those institutions, whether acting as individuals or in groups, would continue to enjoy the liberties we all hold dear and the Constitution enumerates. Corporations would continue to have legal standing to advocate on behalf of the people associated with them. But the fiction that an artificial corporate entity is itself entitled to the same rights of citizenship as people would come to an end.
Corporations are created by the people, acting through their governments. We grant them corporate charters that confer certain legal rights and privileges, like the ability to enter into contracts, limited liability and perpetual life. These rights serve an important and useful role in our economy. But our most sacred rights -- those enshrined in the Constitution -- should be reserved for "We the People."
Mr. Will says that "controversies can be wonderfully clarified when people follow the logic of illogical premises to perverse conclusions." Indeed. By conflating a good-faith attempt to overturn Citizens United with the killing of newborn babies, banning political speech and regulating religious practices, his column demonstrates the lengths to which the supporters of the corporate rights doctrine will go to protect their newfound gains.
Jim McGovern is a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts.
Follow Rep. Jim McGovern on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepMcGovern
Peter Scheer: How Citizens United Can Be Used to Curtail Super PAC Spending
The importance of your ideas including the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights have fallen out of alignment because the Reagan "revolution" and the crisis have created the political space for the downsizing of American Democracy as we know it, and the Bretton Woods concept of corporate governance based on the concepts of FDR pal Adolph Berle and Garner Means have been downsized too. Their work is a classic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Modern_Corporation_and_Private_Property
Democracy is reinventing itself, even sacrificing itself at the altar of the human capital movement. In France socialists are now talking about a Sixth Republic. And you know through your interest in Colombia how the good cop-bad cop is run there.
The feeding frenzy over the alleged Facebook pump and dump is an example not much different than what owners of common and preferred stock face. The power curve difference and slack cutting that one finds in the House and the Senate.
What is not the side-issue in the loss of human dignity you amplify is that the defense driven economy protects those at the top of the economic system, regardless of whether they are democratic, open societies or not.
Example: "A "person" shall be defined as a living human being.
1. Free ads/air time for any candidate on a general election ballot.
2. No out-of-district campaign contributions for a US House of Reps. election.
3. No out-of-state campaign contributions for a US Senate election.
The same rules could be set & adjusted for state judicial elections as well.
As long as big money floods our political system, "solutions" like term limits won't make a difference.
Here is something you should be pursuing. Call Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Washington and confront him about the criminal investigation he has been pursuing against the President of the United States. He and his Cold Case Posse are attempting to take down a seated President. Is that not a huge national security issue? This is an act of treason for crying out loud, he is one of the nations leading law enforcement officers. Eric Holder and Homeland Security should have been all over this. Not long ago the Secret Service called on a Country and Western entertainer for much less.
Personally, Congressman McGovern, I don't think you are anyone else in Congress or at the DOJ will touch Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a ten foot pole on this issue and why would I think that. They have the goods on this criminal and you don't want the American people to ever find out about the fact that it is your Usurper in Chief that is the biggest national security risk in this country. He remains in office because you cower in fear and deception. I would expect this type of behavior from the cowardly Democrats but when the Republican are guilty of the same behavior that turns my stomach into knots. You shame our great nation.
That dog won't hunt.
I want big money profiteers and unions and other legal fictions out of our politics; but wording that into an Amendment without eliminating the rights of all benevolent corporations might not be possible, just as George Will so aptly points out.
I hope you'll check it out and help spread the word.
Corporate personhood ideas to overturn Citizens United:
Constitutional Amendment - http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US82
Statutory Limitation - http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US18
Exercising ones right to express ones view is pretty fundamental to our country (although it is messy at times) and people have long been banding together in lots of organizations to do it. How do we limit the rights of some groups without limiting the rights of others? Who decides?
You have not addressed Will's specific concerns (I have read both his article and the text of your proposed amendment).
Your amendment specifically excludes corporations - ALL corporations - from consideration when the word "people" or "persons" appear in the Constitution.
On one hand: please note that the first amendment does not guarantee a right to free speech to the "people". but instead says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...". This is a limitation on Congress, not a granting of rights to the people. It does not matter who is speaking (or what religion, or what type of press). It may be propoer (I obviously disagree) to restrict corporate speech, but I do not see either the Constitution or your amendment creating that power.
On the other hand: Note Will's comment that even if your amendment (as written) applies, it would silimarly expose corporations to government search, seizure of property without due process or compensation, and other protections. Note also Will's comment that your amendment as written applies to political parties, the Sierra Club, the NRA, non-profits, etc. etc.
How do you reconcile these points?
The speech in question here is speech critical of government (or applicants thereto). I am therefore wary of ANY attempt by government to restrict that speech. In my experience the solution to speech you do not like is more speech, not less.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/individual-rights/
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html
Another thing we can be sure about, is that the Constitution has no mention of corporations. Surely if the Founding Fathers intended for corporations to have guaranteed rights they would have thought to include that mention?
To your other concerns, corporations would still be private property, so not sure why you would believe them to be at risk for search and seizure, etc. Other non-corporations such as small businesses have those protections, yet a small business is not considered a "person" as a corporation currently is.
I think the Bill of Rights says what it says. The clause about freedom of the press is expressed in precissely the same language and in the same place as that of speech. I therefore submit that what applies to one, applies to the other.
The Founding Fathers did not seek to write a document that guaranteed rights per se, but that limited the government to enumerated powers. The First Amendment simply lists some of those rights for which the government cannot legislate.
The Constitution does not mention sexuality either: do you believe the Government therefore has the power to legislate in the area of gay marriage?
Small businesses are corporations also, usually (S Corp versus C Corp, but the Congressman's bill does not distinguish between them).
I will say again: the solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not banning speech.
So what? The Bill of Rights was adopted to protect us from the whims of a majority.
Wow, makes about as much sense as calling money speech.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/83069507.html