'Corporations Are People' Is Built on a 19th-Century Lie. Somewhat unintuitively, American corporations today enjoy many of the same rights as American citizens.
Both, for instance, are entitled to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day. That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The head lawyer representing Southern Pacific was a man named Roscoe Conkling. It was a trust Conkling would betray. Fight corporate personhood. Citizens United? Polls Show Bipartisan Agreement on Constitutional Amendment to Stop Corporate Election Spending. The need to get money out of politics may be the one thing Americans agree on. posted Jan 21, 2011 These days, it often seems that Americans don't have much to agree about.
But when it comes to what democracy is (and isn’t), it turns out we’re on the same page. One year ago today, the Supreme Court handed down what may be its most significant decision in a generation. Sites/default/files/me10129b_public.pdf. The Story of Citizens United v FEC (2011) The Problem With Citizens United Is Not Corporate Personhood. Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders and Florida Rep. Ted Deutch introduced a constitutional amendment in December to overturn Citizens United, one of five decisions since 2006 by which a closely divided Supreme Court vastly increased the amount of corrupting corporate money in elections. In an opinion piece critical of the decision in Citizens United, Senator Sanders wrote: When the Supreme Court says that for purposes of the First Amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger. Citizens United: Faculty roundup. In a 5-4 ruling last Thursday, the U.S.
Supreme Court Justices rejected corporate spending limits on political campaigns. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involved the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a 2002 statute passed by Congress to limit election-related communications, especially so-called “attack ads.” At issue was whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers.
Breaking down Citizens United. January 18, 2012 Vol: 19 No: 3 Community & Editorial by: Valerie Saturen , Contributing Writer.
The Citizens United Catastrophe. Published: Tuesday 7 February 2012 American politics have become a bazaar for the very wealthy and for increasingly aggressive corporations. Resize Text + | - | R We have seen the world created by the Supreme Court’s 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, tore down a century’s worth of law aimed at reducing the amount of corruption in our electoral system.
Corporate Personhood: How Did We Get Here? Kent Greenfield for Democracy Journal: The Stakeholder Strategy. Issue #26, Fall 2012 Kent Greenfield John Bonifaz is a wiry, bespectacled man with graying temples and a hearty laugh that camouflages his seriousness.
He’s fought many progressive fights over the years on issues ranging from voting rights (which won him a MacArthur “genius grant”) to Unocal’s liability for human rights abuses in Myanmar (on which we worked together to draft a lawsuit). We’ve been friends for nearly 30 years, ever since we were student activists at Brown University. These days, however, we find ourselves differing vociferously on what to do about Citizens United v. Nevertheless, I believe that the move to amend is a bad, even horrible, idea.
John and I recently debated Citizens United on television, and during our exchange he said something particularly revealing. Noam Chomsky on Corporate Personhood: 2011. We the People, Not We the Corporations. The Vote Heard Around the World - Corporations Are Not People. Montana High Court Says 'Citizens United' Does Not Apply In Big Sky State. Montana Supreme Court, Citizens United: Can Montana get away with defying the Supreme Court? Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
On the rare occasions when the world talks to you in stereo, it’s a good idea to set aside your knitting and listen. This week, Americans got their first good look at what super PACs—political organizations that can receive unlimited corporate contributions and make unlimited expenditures for federal candidates—have wrought in Iowa. Montana Quietly Passed a Measure That Says Corporations Aren't Humans. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is ready to speak out on the danger of super PACs. Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images In 18 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written more than 200 opinions on a number of important topics, including major opinions on everything from copyright law to abortion rights to employment discrimination.
But in the area of campaign finance, she’s authored only one inconsequential two-paragraph concurring opinion—in one of the Supreme Court’s recent cases striking down parts of the McCain-Feingold law—in which she distanced herself from a more far-reaching dissent of Justice Stevens. She’s been a reliable vote to uphold reasonable campaign-finance laws, but this has hardly been her signature issue. Last week, however, Justice Ginsburg issued a short statement that hinted she is ready to speak out more boldly. ‘Citizens United’ Bounces Back to Supreme Court. Jun 13, 2012 11:52am Will the Supreme Court take another crack at its ‘Citizens United’ ruling?
Justices are scheduled Thursday behind closed doors to discuss Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the landmark 2010 decision holding that corporations can make unlimited independent expenditures using general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates. Hello Citizens United; the #Occupy Amendment is now on the Table. Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections. On the eve of the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling known as , 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. Obama supports constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
February7 By: Robert Weissman 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. Former Gov. Buddy Roemer: Washington is not broken, it's bought. Congressman McGovern introduces constitutional amendments to overturn Citizens United.