Free Speech

[luckytxn 2,264]

Corporations are made up of humans or there would be no Corporation. To give one side an unfair advantage is wrong. One side could at will spend as much as they wanted to influence an election and say anything they wanted even if it is a lie. The other side is being hamstrung to spend its money to rebut what it sees as falsehoods.

[scandal 951]

Corporations are made up of humans or there would be no Corporation. To give one side an unfair advantage is wrong. One side could at will spend as much as they wanted to influence an election and say anything they wanted even if it is a lie. The other side is being hamstrung to spend its money to rebut what it sees as falsehoods.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/11

What is a corporation anyway? Isn’t it like any other association of people?

A corporation is not just like any other association of people. A corporation is a specific creation of state or federal statute that may only be used for purposes defined by the state or federal statute that permitted the creation of the corporation. While Justice Scalia has claimed that corporations are like other associations of people, this is wrong. “Those who feel that the essence of the corporation rests in the contract among its members rather than in the government decree . . . fail to distinguish, as the eighteenth century did, between the corporation and the voluntary association.”[1]

That distinction has always been true and remains valid now. A corporation is a government-created structure for doing business, and is available only by statute.[2] The structure has state-created advantages (shareholder limited liability, for instance) and disadvantages (taxation of corporate profits and shareholder dividends, for instance) as compared to other structures. Non-profit corporations have other statutory advantages (such as the ability to raise tax deductible money) and disadvantages (such as various compliance requirements and restrictions on political activity).

The corporate legal form remains today not simply an association of people but a pure creation of statute that, unlike associations of people, may or may not be permitted by law. Indeed, a corporation is not fundamentally different now than in 1819 when Chief Justice Marshall writing for the Court explained that a corporation, as a “mere creature of law . . possesses only those properties which the charter confers upon it. . . .”[3] Corporations remain creatures of statute, subject to various government compliance requirements.[4]

[1] Oscar Handlin & Mary Flug Handlin, Commonwealth: A Study of the Role of Government in the American Economy, Massachusetts, 1774-1861, 92 & n.18 (New York Univ. Press 1974).

[2] Harry G. Henn & John R. Alexander, Law of Corporations, West Hornbook Series, 14-35 (3d ed. 1981).

[3] Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518, 636 (1819).

[4] CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69, 89-91 (1987) (“state regulation of corporate governance is regulation of entities whose very existence and attributes are a product of state law.”).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Corporations are made up of humans...

Yes, and those human beings already have the right. Why give them the same right twice? You right-wingers whine to no end about the same dollar being taxed twice, don't you?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Yes, and those human beings already have the right. Why give them the same right twice? You right-wingers whine to no end about the same dollar being taxed twice, don't you?

As one side of individuals can and do band together to pool their money to combat whatever it is they want to fight then why not the individuals in that corporation do the same? There are many groups out there now that are made up of individuals that have banded together and they pool their money to funnel to ads or candidates. The corporation is doing the same thing by taking what is some of its own money that could be earmarked to be spent to the individuals as perks but spent to combat a menace they see that are threatening their livelihood.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Corporations are made up of humans or there would be no Corporation. To give one side an unfair advantage is wrong. One side could at will spend as much as they wanted to influence an election and say anything they wanted even if it is a lie. The other side is being hamstrung to spend its money to rebut what it sees as falsehoods.

That surely begs the question of who sets the agenda for the corporate voice and to what extent it reflects the views of the people who work for it?

If its just the CEO and a board of directors, doesn't this simply give more weight to the opinions of a few individuals?

We're not talking a plurality of opinion by any means, unless a persons politics are scrutinized when making hiring decisions. But then, who actually does THAT!?

[scandal 951]

I got this email in my inbox the other day:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for signing the petition to protect our democracy by ensuring that free speech rights are for people, not corporations.

Twelve days ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling striking at the heart of our democracy. The Court disregarded more than a century of precedent and ruled that our Constitution prevents the American people from regulating corporate money in our elections and politics. That’s wrong and we don’t buy it.

And twelve days ago, we stood up to fight back. Thousands of you joined us in our call for a constitutional amendment to defend our democracy and to restore the First Amendment to its intended purpose: to protect people, not corporations.

And, today, Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland has introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court’s ruling. Joined by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the Edwards amendment will ensure that Congress and the states may prohibit corporations from spending their funds for political activity.

Q6cehXA5mHo

CLICK HERE to watch this interview with Congresswoman Edwards discussing her constitutional amendment.

And CLICK HERE to see our press release applauding her introduction of this amendment.

The Framers of the Constitution intended the First Amendment to protect the rights of citizens, everyday people, not corporations. Corporations are not people. They are artificial entities created by the state with state-based advantages. In fact, the recent ruling will certainly drown out the voices of the very citizens the First Amendment was meant to protect.

We as a nation have amended the United States Constitution before. Twenty-seven times. That history includes amendments in response to US Supreme Court rulings directly threatening the democratic process. The Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC demands a similar constitutional amendment response.

But to do this, we need to build a broad-based democracy movement. You can help make this happen.

Ways to Get Involved

* Forward this email to at least 10 or more of your friends urging that they join us and sign the petition.

* Contact your Member of Congress in the House of Representatives and United States Senate, about the Edwards amendment.

* Organize a local amendment committee.

* Donate to support this campaign.

* Follow Free Speech for People on Twitter and Facebook to receive the latest news on the campaign.

* CLICK HERE to find out other ways to get involved.

Together, we will reclaim our First Amendment and our democracy.

Thank you.

The Free Speech for People Campaign

http://FreeSpeechforPeople.org

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

run for the hills, the left wants to change things "for the better"

Keep an eye on your wallet too.

[scandal 951]

More email in my inbox today! I think I'll post every email I get from this group onto this VJ thread.

It's my response to the "How to annoy a liberal bumpersticker" thread from yesterday. Let's call this the "How to annoy haters of our First Amendment" thread

Dear Friend,

Our campaign is moving forward to create a Constitutional Amendment that will protect free speech and free elections for people, not corporations. In less than a month, we've formed a coalition and seen an amendment introduced in Congress that now has 12 co-sponsors.

Additional amendments and legislation have been introduced in Congress and in state legislatures. Resolutions urging amendments have been introduced at the state and local levels. Campaigns have been launched to organize shareholders to press for reforms. We offer a comprehensive and constantly updated overview of all of these efforts on our website.

To fully succeed, we need to build a strong organization in every state, focused on state legislatures as well as Congress. To do this, we'll need your help. Please click the appropriate boxes on this webpage to indicate what you are interested in doing.

Here are some ways to get started:

* Forward this Email to everyone you know and ask them to sign up at http://freespeechforpeople.org

* Phone your Members of Congress at 202-224-3121, tell them about HJ Res 74, and let us know their positions.

* Share these videos.

* Link to our website using these graphics.

* Join us on FaceBook.

* Follow us on Twitter.

* Ask your organizations to endorse Free Speech for People.

* Write letters to editors.

* Host educational events using these resources.

* Pass this resolution in your organization, city, county, or state legislature or by public initiative.

* Organize a rally like the one planned for February 22nd at the Maryland state capitol.

* Invite leaders of Free Speech for People to speak at your event.

Protect our democracy! Free speech is for people — not corporations.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Yes, and those human beings already have the right. Why give them the same right twice? You right-wingers whine to no end about the same dollar being taxed twice, don't you?

^ wine?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

More email in my inbox today! I think I'll post every email I get from this group onto this VJ thread.

It's my response to the "How to annoy a liberal bumpersticker" thread from yesterday. Let's call this the "How to annoy haters of our First Amendment" thread

[scandal 951]

New email received today.

Dear Friends,

“Amend the Constitution.” That is the cover title for The Progressive Magazine’s April 2010 issue. In the lead article, Matthew Rothschild, the magazine’s editor, writes:

“Make no mistake about it: The [supreme] court’s ruling in Citizens United, if left to stand, will destroy whatever hope we may ever have had of democracy in this country. It will entrench corporate power as never before. And the promise of America will be dashed.”

Rothschild’s article, which cites our Free Speech For People Campaign, is worth reading. It can be found here.

And, last Wednesday, John Nichols of The Nation Magazine posted a blog piece entitled: “Tell Congress to Get Serious About Corporate Campaign Abuse.” The piece discusses the constitutional amendment which Congresswoman Donna Edwards and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. have introduced to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, an amendment which now has 23 additional co-sponsors in the US House of Representatives. You can access the Nichols piece here.

Please forward these articles to your friends and post them on your Facebook page if you have one. Help us spread the word about this campaign to reclaim our democracy.

Thank you and keep on!

The Free Speech For People Campaign

[scandal 951]

New letter has been issued. We are witnessing constitutional history in the making. The 28th Amendment? Perhaps.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/finalfsfppfaw.pdf

October 4, 2010

The Honorable Patrick Leahy

Chairman

United States Senate Judiciary Committee

433 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman

United States House of Representatives

Judiciary Committee

2426 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Russ Feingold

Chairman

Subcommittee on the Constitution

United States Senate Judiciary Committee

506 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Chairman

Subcommittee on the Constitution

United States House of Representatives

Judiciary Committee

2334 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Re: Citizens United v. FEC

Dear Chairmen Leahy, Conyers, Feingold, and Nadler:

We, the undersigned attorneys and law professors, have previously served the

United States, our respective states, or in our law schools in various capacities. While

we have all had different practices, interests and clients, we share one thing: we believe

the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was not

only wrongly decided but presents a serious danger to effective self-government of, for

and by the American people, a danger which must be addressed.

As former public servants and law professors, we have sworn to uphold and

defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We write today because we

believe that the Supreme Court’s creation of corporate “speech” rights on which the

Citizens United decision rests is contrary to the First Amendment as we understand it.

The ruling in Citizens United not only struck down the federal Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act’s restriction on corporate electioneering expenditures, it swept

aside decades of Supreme Court law and scores of state laws regulating corporate

political expenditures in state elections.

Before Citizens United, a long line of Supreme Court cases, backed by two

centuries of Constitutional jurisprudence and the basic truth that corporations are not

people but creations of state law, had correctly ruled that Congress and the States may

regulate corporate political expenditures not because of the type of speech or political

goals sought by corporations but because of the very nature of the corporate entity itself.

Corporate political expenditure regulations do not infringe any speech rights of the

American people whatsoever. Rather, such regulations reflect the power of the American

people to regulate corporations and the rules that govern such entities as the people and

our representatives see fit. Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent rightly calls the majority

opinion a “radical departure from what has been settled First Amendment law.”

The extraordinary response of Americans across the political spectrum to Citizens

United reflects that this radical and erroneous interpretation of the First Amendment is

fundamentally wrong as a matter of constitutional law, history, and our republican

principles of self-government. The rejection of the majority’s action in Citizens United

cuts across all partisan lines: 81% of Independents, 76% of Republicans, and 85% of

Democrats oppose the decision, and 72% of the people support reinstating the very limits

that the Court struck down.1

1 Washington Post-ABC News poll, February 2010. In a June 2010 poll about Citizens United, 82% of

respondents worried that Congress “will not go far enough to keep corporations from having too much

influence,” and 77% believe that Congress should promote a Constitutional amendment to address the

problem.

The consequences of the Court’s departure from settled law are grave. The data

suggest the likely harm to our democracy if the American people do not — or, according

to the Court, cannot — control corporate money in politics:

• According to the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States, post-tax corporate

profits in 2005 were almost $1 trillion.

• During the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100 companies — the 100 largest

corporations — alone had combined revenues of $13.1 trillion and profits of

$605 billion.

• In contrast, during the same 2008 cycle, all political parties combined spent $1.5

billion and all of the federal PACs or political action committees, spent $1.2

billion.

If we take only the profit of the 100 largest corporations, those corporations

would have needed less than 2 percent of their $605 billion in profit in 2008 to make

political expenditures that would have doubled the combined 2008 campaign

expenditures by all of the federal election campaigns (presidential and congressional), the

political parties and the federal PACs.

The consequences go well beyond federal elections. In Montana, for example,

before Citizens United, the average state legislator’s campaign spent $17,000 to win

election to the state legislature.2 On March 8, 2010, two corporations, citing Citizens

United, sued the State of Montana to strike down a 1912 law providing that “A

corporation may not make a contribution or expenditure in connection with a candidate or

a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” It is

unlikely that state elections in Montana and elsewhere will remain accessible to most

people, or that people will not be alienated by the transformation of state politics into

contests among corporate-funded campaigns from competing corporate interests.

Citizens United also will impair the impartiality, and the perceived impartiality, of

justice in America. Twenty-one states have elected Supreme Court justices, and thirty nine

states elect at least some appellate or major trial court judges. Even before Citizens

United, as former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said, “In too many states, judicial

elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to

install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution.”3 Now

corporations will have even greater ability to bring their financial resources to bear on

those elections, further undermining the independence of the state judiciaries.

2 Testimony of Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock United States Senate Committee on Rules

and Administration February 2, 2010

3 See www.justiceatstake.org. State Supreme Court candidates raised $200.4 million from 1999-2008,

compared with an estimated $85.4 million in 1989-1998. Source: National Institute on Money in State

Politics. In Caperton v. Massey, 556 U.S. ____ (2009) the Supreme Court held that the due process clause

required the recusal of a justice who was elected with the help of $3 million in campaign expenditures from

a West Virginia coal executive whose corporation was in the midst of appealing a $50 million jury award

against his company. The justice, once elected, cast the deciding vote to overturn the suit.

We appreciate that you each have recognized the urgency of addressing the

erroneous Citizens United decision and that each of your committees has held hearings

concerning the matter. We urge that you continue to explore all potential remedies,

including proposals for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to protect our democracy

and self-government of the people. We do not take lightly proposals to amend the

Constitution, and we recognize, as did James Madison, that we should do so only on

“great and extraordinary occasions.” We believe this may be one such occasion.

Where such occasions arise, the American people have always used the

amendment process to perfect our democracy. Indeed, most of the seventeen

amendments adopted since the original Bill of Rights have corrected what the American

people understood were obstacles to the equal right of all people to participate in selfgovernment

on equal terms. The 13th Amendment ended slavery, the 14th guaranteed

liberty, due process and equal protection of all, and the 15th guaranteed the right to vote

could not be abridged on account of race. With the 17th Amendment (1913), the people

took back the right to elect Senators, who previously were elected by the state

legislatures. With the 19th Amendment, the people guaranteed the right of women to

vote, overruling the Supreme Court’s view that equal protection of all persons under the

14th amendment did not provide equal voting rights for women. The 24th Amendment

was adopted in 1964 to eliminate the poll tax, which was used to block poor people, often

African Americans, from voting. The 26th Amendment in 1971 ensured that the right to

vote included men and women age 18 and older.

We look forward to joining you and the American people in this critical debate,

and to working together to correct the Supreme Court’s grave error in Citizens United v.

Federal Election Commission.

Very truly yours,

Francis X. Bellotti

Former Attorney General, Commonwealth of

Massachusetts

Scott Harshbarger

Former Attorney General, Commonwealth of

Massachusetts

Peg Lautenschlager

Former Attorney General, State of Wisconsin

Michael Moore

Former Attorney General, State of Mississippi

Steven Rowe

Former Attorney General, State of Maine

Linda Singer

Former Attorney General, Washington, DC

Grant Woods

Former Attorney General, State of Arizona

Elizabeth Bartholet

Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law

Faculty Director, Child Advocacy Program

Harvard Law School

Derrick Bell

Visiting Professor of Law,

New York University School of Law

Adam Benforado

Asst. Professor of Law

Earle Mack School of Law

Drexel University

John Brautigam

Former Assistant Attorney General, State of Maine

Former Representative, State of Maine

Robert W. Benson

Professor of Law

Loyola Law School

Allison Burroughs

Former Assistant United States Attorney, District of

Massachusetts

Jeffrey D. Clements

Former Assistant Attorney General, Massachusetts

Chief, Public Protection Bureau

General Counsel, Free Speech for People

Ben T. Clements

Former Chief Legal Counsel to the Governor

of Massachusetts

Former Assistant United States Attorney, District of

Massachusetts

John C. Coates IV

John F. Cogan Professor of Law and Economics,

Harvard Law School

Christine Desan

Professor of Law

Harvard Law School

Christopher Edley

Honorable William H. Orrick Jr. Distinguished

Chair and Dean,

Boalt Hall School of Law

University of California-Berkley

NOTE: Affiliations or former affiliations are for

identification purposes only

Signatures continue on following pages

Sean Flynn

American University Washington College of Law,

Professorial Lecturer

Associate Director, Program on Information

Justice

Richard T. Ford

George E. Osborne Professor of Law,

Stanford Law School

Lawrence Friedman

Professor of Law, New England School of Law

Gerald E. Frug

Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law

Harvard Law School

Lisa Graves

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United

States Department of Justice

Former Chief Nominations Counsel, United States

Senate Judiciary Committee

Executive Director, Center for Media and

Democracy

George W. Heselton

Former Representative, State of Maine

Former President, Gardiner (ME) Board of Trade

H. Cabanne Howard

Assistant Professor of Law and Public Policy,

University of Maine School of Law

Former Assistant Attorney General, State of Maine

Chief, Environmental Protection Division

David Kairys

Professor of Law

James E. Beasley Chair (2001-2007)

Beasley Law School

Temple University

Duncan Kennedy

Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence

Harvard Law School

Carol Kenner

Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of

Massachusetts (Retired)

Mark Kmetz

Former Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern

District, Pennsylvania

Former Assistant Attorney General, Deputy Bureau

Chief, Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office

Pamela S. Kogut

Former Assistant Attorney General, Massachusetts

Douglas A. Kysar

Joseph M. Field ’55 Professor of Law

Yale Law School

Ian F. Hanley Lopez

John H. Boalt Professor of Law,

Boalt Hall School of Law

University of California-Berkley

Paul F. Macri

Former Assistant Attorney General, Maine

Arnold MacDonald

President, Maine Bar Foundation (2009)

Chair, Maine State Bar Association Business Law

Section (2005-2006)

David W. Mills

Professor from Practice and Senior Lecturer in Law

Stanford Law School

Lawrence Mitchell

Theodore Rinehart Professor of Business Law

Executive Director, Center for Law, Economics

and Finance

The George Washington University Law School

NOTE: Affiliations or former affiliations are for identification purposes only

Peter L. Murray

Harvard Law School, Robert Braucher Visiting

Professor of Law from Practice

Willard P. Ogburn

Former Deputy Commissioner for Consumer

Credit

Massachusetts Banking Commission

Executive Director

National Consumer Law Center

Charles Ogletree

Jesse Climenko Professor of Law

Founding and Executive Director,

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute

for Race & Justice

Harvard Law School

John Paterson

Former Deputy Attorney General, Maine

Chief, Environmental Division

Tamara R. Piety

Professor of Law, University

of Tulsa College of Law

Michael Pineault

Former Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Economic Crimes Unit

Former Deputy Chief Legal Counsel to the

Governor of Massachusetts

Jamin Raskin

Professor of Law, American University

Washington College of Law

State Senator, Maryland

Jeffrey S. Robbins

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of

Massachusetts

Former U.S. Delegate, United Nations Human

Rights Commission

Stuart Rossman

Former Assistant Attorney General, Massachusetts

Chief, Trial Division and Business & Labor

Protection Bureau

Dale Rubin

Professor of Law

Appalachian School of Law

Peter M. Shane

Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law,

Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

Steven H. Shiffrin

Charles Frank Reavis Sr. Professor of Law

Cornell Law School

Carol Steiker

Howard J. and Katherine W. Aibel Professor of Law

Harvard Law School

Scott F. Turow

Former Assistant United States Attorney

Northern District of Illinois

Former Chair, Illinois Ethics Commission

Author

Zephyr Teachout

Assoc. Professor of Law

Fordham University School of Law

Gerald Torres

Bryant Smith Chair

University of Texas Law School

Lucie E. White

Louis A. Horvitz Professor of Law

Harvard Law School

Adam Winkler

Professor of Law

UCLA School of Law

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Is this gonna be Chad central again? Wheres Al?

[SMR 368]

Ok, I just signed the petition in support. In general, I do agree with their aims. I do believe this rises to the level of requiring a constitutional amendment. When the court acts in a way that clearly contradicts the intent of the Constitution, the only remedy Congress and the people have is to amend the Constitution. This does not (and should not) happen often, but there is precedent (Dredd Scott decision leading the the 14th Amendment is the most famous case).

On a more practical level, I'm skeptical that this really makes a tremendous difference. Corporations have ALWAYS found ways to influence the political process. When they don't have direct access to campaign funding, they have used tools (e.g. 527s) to get their way. Money talks. It always has, it always will.

Having said that, there is a limit to how much damage corporations and their money can actually do to our democracy. For all their spending, at the end of the day it's voters in polling booths on election day that actually determine our future. Sure, we are swayed by electioneering, but WE decide. No corporation has ever yet been granted the right to vote, that right remains with WE the people.

I think you have a lot of good points but you're exaggerating when you say this clearly contradicts the Constitution. The Constitution should be interpreted in the most literal way possible. The phrase "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," neither states nor implies anything to do with corporations. Maybe it should. I could definitely agree with that. But you're first statement is correct. This requires an amendment.

When we realize that the Constitution has a problem if interpreted literally, we shouldn't just start interpreting it differently. It may work for a little while but that quickly leads to the actual document being irrelevant. We need to change the document formally as necessary instead of relying on court rulings which are arbitrary and sometimes inconsistent.

[scandal 951]

Dear friend -

The takeover of the House in last week’s election showed us just how big a deal it is that corporations can now spend limitless money on election campaigns, as if they had the same rights as people.

Less than a year ago, the Supreme Court said corporations have those rights. The ruling was horribly wrong, but a lot of people missed the story.

Well, now everyone can see how wrong it is.

It’s time to take action. Today we’re renewing our call for a Constitutional amendment, to make it clear that Free Speech and other Constitutional rights are for people, not corporations.

Sign on now to help take back our democracy.

We’re already seeing a huge response to our online campaign -- our list of active supporters has grown by more than one-third, just since last week, thanks to our friends at Credo.

People everywhere are deeply opposed to corporations having the same rights as people. A staggering 80% of Americans polled have voiced their opposition to the court decision that said corporations have a “free speech” right to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections -- and that includes 76% of Republicans, as well as 81% of independents and 85% of Democrats.[1]

In the wake of last week’s election, there’s also been an outpouring of criticism from newspapers all over the country: Idaho, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and of course New York and California papers have all run editorials decrying the influence of unrestrained corporate spending on our democracy.[2]

Now’s our moment to do something about it. With today’s action, we’re raising our commitment to fight for a Constitutional amendment to a new level. We know it will take a lot of work to win a Constitutional amendment, and starting today, we’re going to do whatever it takes to get there. We’re going to need your help.

The first step is signing on; the second is to get your friends to sign on too. Just click the link below:

Sign on here to join our call for a Constitutional amendment.

The corporate big shots on Wall Street and their friends in Washington are betting that Americans will just buckle under and submit to their latest power grab. We have to prove them wrong.

Sign on today.

Thanks for your help.

- John

John Bonifaz

Free Speech for People

November 11, 2010

[1]: Washington Post: “Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing,” 2/17/10.

[2]: Recent editorials include:

Idaho Mountain Express: "Corporate big bucks literally buying U.S. politicians", 10/15/10;

Lexington Herald-Leader (KY) "Campaign ads full of 'stench of secrecy'", 10/31/10;

The Charleston Gazette (WV): "'Speech': Campaign cash", 10/8/10;

Lovely County Citizen (AR): "USA, Inc.", 10/14/10;

Appleton Post-Crescent (WI): "Third-party ads hurting election process," 11/1/10;

The Times-Record (Brunswick, ME): "Unfettered and anonymous", 11/3/10;

Kalamazoo Gazette (MI): "Money from special interests is stealing our democracy", 10/17/10;

The Toledo Blade (OH): “Elections for sale”, 11/8/10;

The Miami Herald: "Politics in the dark", 11/3/10;

The San Francisco Chronicle: "Who's funding attacks on Kamala Harris?", 10/26/2010;

The Sacramento Bee: "Court opened up floodgates with its campaign ad decision," 10/31/10; and:

The New York Times: "Drowning in Campaign Cash", 10/30/10.