corporate personhood
This seems to be the key issue at the moment. Without addressing corporate influence and election financing, it's essentially impossible to make any substantial progress on anything else. Bernie Sanders Saving American Democracy amendment addresses both, but a constitutional amendment needs a lot of public support. I would suggest spreading the word and encouraging people to contact their representatives. Dec 24
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
Fight corporate personhood
We the People, Not We the Corporations | Move to Amend
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. Sign the PetitionMontana Supreme Court, Citizens United: Can Montana get away with defying the Supreme Court? - Slate Magazine
But by a 5-2 margin, Montana’s high court determined that the state law survived “strict scrutiny” because Montana’s unique context and history justified the ban in ways not contemplated by Citizens United . In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Mike McGrath dove deep into that history, ranging back over the “tumultuous years … marked by rough contests for political and economic domination primarily in the mining center of Butte, between mining and industrial enterprises controlled by foreign trusts or corporations.” Noting that, back in the last Gilded Age, Montana's wealthy "Copper Kings" bought judges and senators, picked the location of the capital, and owned the media, McGrath pointed to Montana’s vast size, sparse population, low-cost elections, and long history of having its resources plundered by foreign corporate interests to emphasize that the state has a compelling interest in maintaining its ban.
In this short statement, Justice Ginsburg quoted from the least defensible part of the Citizens United opinion. As I explained in October, according to the Supreme Court, the only government interests that can justify limits on campaign money against First Amendment challenge are the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption. (This interest is what explains the constitutionality of limits on contributions to candidates.) In Citizens United , Justice Kennedy, writing for the court majority, resolved as matter of fiat what had appeared to be a factual question about independent spending and corruption: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” He further declared that “[t]he appearance of influence or access [coming from unlimited corporate spending] will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is ready to speak out on the danger of super PACs. - Slate Magazine
Petition - A Petition to Support the Saving American Democracy Amendment : Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court decision in a case called Citizens United vs. FEC.Hello Citizens United; the #Occupy Amendment is now on the Table – FreakOutNation
The Constitutional Amendment introduced by Rep. Ted Deutch and Senator Bernie Sanders is now on the table. One of the motivating forces behind the influx of supporters, was the Occupy movement which raged against money being funneled into politics, thus negating their voice and vote. If the Amendment passes, the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision could be overturned.
We have seen the world created by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and it doesn’t work. Oh, yes, it works nicely for the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country, especially if they want to shroud their efforts to influence politics behind shell corporations. It just doesn’t happen to work if you think we are a democracy and not a plutocracy. Two years ago, Citizens United tore down a century’s worth of law aimed at reducing the amount of corruption in our electoral system.
The Citizens United Catastrophe | NationofChange
Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections | Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
On the eve of the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United , which opened the floodgate of unlimited, shadowy corporate spending in public elections, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced H. J. Res. 100, a constitutional amendment to rescue American democracy from corporate money’s corrupting influence. “Because of the decision by the Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case, more money was spent on campaigns in the 2010 election than has ever been spent in a mid-term election. “Because of the Citizens United case, more money will be spent in the 2012 elections than has ever been spent in an election in the history of our country. “Because of the Citizens United case, American democracy has been put up on the auction block,” said Kucinich.
President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign took the unfortunate step last night of announcing it would support the Super PAC Priorities USA. The campaign’s unwillingness to disarm in the face of an expected rash of attack ads from secretive and unaccountable Republican-leading Super PACs and independent organizations is understandable, but the president’s engagement in the Super PAC arms race virtually ensures we will witness the nastiest campaign in memory. Even more disturbingly, it transfers still more power and influence to the miniscule coterie of super-wealthy individuals and corporations who dominate funding of the Super PACs and independent organizations. We are now in the midst of a Citizens United -induced democracy death spiral.
Obama supports constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United « CitizenVox
RESOLUTIONS WEEK
In the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , corporations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that their interests are the ones our politicians are concerned about, at the expense of the interests of the American people. People in towns and cities across the country are advancing resolutions through their city and town councils and state legislatures that declare support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United , challenge corporate power. and eliminate unlimited campaign spending. A coalition of groups are working with citizens all over the country to pass over 100 new local resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment, centered around Resolutions Week in June.We deserve a country where our elected officials are not bought and paid for by big corporations. But the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision overturned over a century of precedent and opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of corporate money to flow into our political system. Shockingly, the court came to this decision based on the notion that a corporation is legally a "person" entitled to First Amendment rights, and by equating a corporation's right to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing an election with our right to free speech. But with the Citizens United decision now the law of the land, large corporations have the power to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries to buy elections.
Tell Congress: Only people are people.
Should corporations have the same rights as human beings, and also the right to buy elections? Two years ago, in its landmark Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court ruled yes. An overwhelming majority of Americans, however, say no. In growing numbers, they are calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not people and that the unchecked flow of cash does not equal free speech. The undue influence of corporate and financial interests is deeply detrimental to our democracy.
Real Change News | Breaking down Citizens United
Requesting Congress to amend the United States Constitution that provides corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions. Public hearing, executive action scheduled, but the motion to report the bill out of the Senate Committee on Judiciary at 1:30 PM failed. ( Committee Materials )