Call for constitutional amendment to end ‘corporate personhood’ on way to Maine Senate

[jpak]

Source: Bangor Daily News

AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine could become the 13th state to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn the controversial Citizens United ruling.

Sen. Richard Woodbury, I-Yarmouth, plans to introduce a resolution Tuesday in the Maine Senate that directs the state’s congressional delegation to support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” opinion equating campaign spending with free speech.

Woodbury made his case for the resolution during a Maine Citizens for Clean Elections event Monday in the State House Hall of Flags. Twelve other states, most recently West Virginia earlier this month, have passed similar resolutions.

In March, independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn “Citizens United.” The proposed amendment would “expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the states to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.”

<more>

Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/04/29/news/state/call-for-constitutional-amendment-to-end-corporate-personhood-on-way-to-maine-senate/?ref=regionstate

---

[Nye Bevan]

1. If corporations such as DemocraticUnderground LLC were stripped of their constitutional protections,

as this resolution advocates, there would be no constitutional protections against the police searching the offices and records of DU for no reason, and confiscating DU's stuff without paying compensation.

[jberryhill]

3. I'm tired on non-government-approved media anyway

The ACLU, Greenpeace, NARAL, Planned Parenthood can all have a hot cup of STFU as far as these voodoo believers are concerned.

[Half-Century Man]

7. Check It

I read it as organizations may not contribute as persons to a political topic other than through speech, and money no longer counts as a form of speech.
The freedom of that speech and the privacy of those organizations is unchanged.
Ah....a second point, For profit corporations is the distinction. That might not be far reaching enough. It won't effect super pacs. We need to kill those roaches as well.

[Nye Bevan]

8. "expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by

the Constitution of the United States...."

[jberryhill]

9. What was Citizens United doing, exactly

Do you know?

[Half-Century Man]

11. Correct me if I'm wrong

I think that "Citizens United" was the group which put forth the proposition that corporate monetary political donations equaled the exercise of free speech by an organization. They got the Supreme Court of the United States to agree to that ludicrous idea.

[jberryhill]

13. What, specifically, was Citizens United doing

What is the activity in which they were engaged which landed them in court?

Do you know?

[Half-Century Man]

14. Citizens United

Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission...
2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act) prohibited unions and corporations from using general funds to broadcast a political ad mentioning a candidate by name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
A Conservative 501 super pac called Citizens United Filed an injunction with the FEC to stop the release of Michael Moore's documentary film "Fahrenheit 9/11", claiming that how Bush's handling of 911 was a negative political ad mentioning then Pres. Bush. The FEC dismissed this claim; a second claim that the entire movie was a political ad was also dismissed.
Citizens United sought to attack Sen. Clinton with their own negative movie, A lower court ruled that the movie was an longer version of a televised negative ad campaign.
The Supreme Court ruled that Citizens United's film was an expression of free speech via expenditure. That corporations and Union expressed their freedom of speech through independent actions afforded by general funds.

As long as they operate independently; any amount can be spent to endorse or attack any candidate by name.

[jberryhill]

15. "Citizens United sought to attack Sen. Clinton with their own negative movie"

They were trying to make a movie.

Should the government be in the business of telling companies whether they can or cannot make a movie?

[Half-Century Man]

16. yeah

Hillary: the movie. on DirecTV
They made a movie and wanted to air it within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. If I remember it was the democratic primary 2003/2004.

[Nye Bevan]

21. If the Government can ban movies they can also ban books.

Do we really want book-banning to be allowed by the Constitution?

[jpak]

17. Oh Horseshit

The 4th Amendment trumps pathetic douchebaggery.

Try again.

Yes

[truthisfreedom]

2. Screw 'em. Nothing but liars.

[tclambert]

4. Corporations should serve the people.

That's right, I didn't accidentally mix up the order. People should NOT work as slaves to the corporations. That is NOT what life is about. Corporations exist to make our lives better. Not just the CEOs and other C_Os. Everybody. All of us.

[Maineman]

5. I can make no sense out of the first three comments.

Corporations are not persons. Money is not speech.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Should organizations such as Planned Parenthood have any constitutional protections at all?

If a Republican controlled Congress were to pass a law banning Planned Parenthood from paying for advertising, would you want the courts to uphold that law as constitutional?

[Vincardog]

20. There is a whole body of a thing called "Corporate Law" They can contract and own property

that does not give them the right to control our government.

[Jim Lane]

10. Corporations should be persons for some purposes but not others.

I know of no state that lets corporations vote.

On the other hand, the Constitution provides some rights that have long been applied to corporations, and rightly so. Nye Bevan noted the freedom of speech. I'll add the takings clause -- government may not take a person's property without due process of law. Should a President Palin have the power to sign an executive order confiscating all the property of a corporation that recognizes a labor union, or covers abortions under its employee health plan, or does something else that she dislikes?

Not that I think Palin will ever be President, but I think some Republican will be.

[jopacaco]

12. It is about time

I am a Maine resident and I am pleased that the legislature is going to tackle this issue. Citizens United was a horrible Supreme Court decision that needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people regardless of what Mitt Romney may say.

[grahamhgreen]

18. K&R!

[neverforget]

19. Hopefully more states will follow and we can get rid of this stupid

ruling someday.