Free Speech

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

Dx81TeELcik&feature=player_embedded

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

A sharply divided Supreme Court decided that the American people are powerless to stop corporations from using corporate funds to influence state and federal elections. The 5-4 decision ruled that the restrictions on corporate expenditures in elections contained in the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known as BCRA or “McCain-Feingold”) violated the First Amendment protections of free speech.

The ruling dramatically expands the new “corporate rights” doctrine that has transformed the First Amendment in recent years, and exposes an already-corrupted political process to a new flow of billions of dollars of corporate money.

The result in Citizens United is radical. To accomplish this, the majority - - Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito - - had to overrule two previous cases where the Court ruled correctly that Congress and the States may try to keep corporate money out of politics. In the Citizens United case, the Court cast aside a 2003 decision, McConnell v. FEC, where the Court upheld the very provision it now ruled unconstitutional, and a 1990 decision, Austin v. Chamber of Commerce, where the Court had ruled that a Michigan law limiting corporate expenditures in elections did not violate the First Amendment.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/7

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

The Solution: A Free Speech for People Amendment

To correct the damage the Supreme Court has done to the First Amendment, we need to pass a constitutional amendment of our own that puts people ahead of corporations.

Below is our resolution in support of the Free Speech for People Amendment.

ADD YOUR NAME IN SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION»

WHEREAS the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;

WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;

WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy;

WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government;

NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

Learn more about the "Free Speech for People Amendment"

ADD YOUR NAME IN SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION»

Edited January 23, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[scandal 951]

Steve, thanks for the links.

Here is their proposed language for an actual Amendment:

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.

I'm curious: would you support adding "organized labor union" to this amendment? In addition to " corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity"?

I would think that if the goal is to get such an amendment passed (and quickly), the surest way to do so would be to ensure that it does not have even a whiff of partisanship. If the goal truly is to protect our endangered rights as citizens, shouldn't the amendment target unions and corporations equally?

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

Steve, thanks for the links.

Here is their proposed language for an actual Amendment:

I'm curious: would you support adding "organized labor union" to this amendment? In addition to " corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity"?

I would think that if the goal is to get such an amendment passed (and quickly), the surest way to do so would be to ensure that it does not have even a whiff of partisanship. If the goal truly is to protect our endangered rights as citizens, shouldn't the amendment target unions and corporations equally?

Thanks, Ron.

Yes, I would. Equal access...that's the measuring stick for me.

[scandal 951]

Thanks, Ron.

Yes, I would. Equal access...that's the measuring stick for me.

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.

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

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.

Amen brother.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

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

[scandal 951]

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

I never realized that Free Speech and the First Amendment was an issue of the "Left". That would be news to a great many conservatives.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I never realized that Free Speech and the First Amendment was an issue of the "Left". That would be news to a great many conservatives.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

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

I believe the left are running for the hills!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I never realized that Free Speech and the First Amendment was an issue of the "Left". That would be news to a great many conservatives.

i don't see very many on the right lining up behind this idea.

[luckytxn 2,264]

If we are going to do this then why target just one part of the process? We would need to also limit everyones ability to use their own funds to influence an election. A small group of people could decide they wanted to pool their money and influence an election that would hurt particular corporations. Then the corporation is not allowed to spend their money to counteract the other side and show their sides reasons. This is very wrong to hamstring one side and not the other. You are stopping the freedom of expression of some and not others.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

i don't see very many on the right lining up behind this idea.

If the 'idea' is the specific constitutional amendment being proposed, yes you are right.

If the 'idea' is the larger belief that the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United vs FEC was a huge mistake and a blow to our democracy, you need look no further than Snowe or McCain for opposition from your side of the aisle.

You are stopping the freedom of expression of some and not others.

All human beings would retain the right.

No non-humans would.

[scandal 951]

If the 'idea' is the specific constitutional amendment being proposed, yes you are right.

If the 'idea' is the larger belief that the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United vs FEC was a huge mistake and a blow to our democracy, you need look no further than Snowe or McCain for opposition from your side of the aisle.

Well put.

Then again, many on the extreme right have already dismissed GOPers such as Snowe and McCain as RINOs, precisely because they dare to question the orthodoxy of the extreme right.

Thankfully, our good friend Charles is a contemplative and agreeable sort, and would never deign to associate himself with such extremists.