[GPSCC-chat] Fwd: corporate personhood

[Tian Harter]

Fred sent an email to this list. I cut out the good part and pasted it
below. For more, look on truthout!

____________________Begin forwarded material.______________________
Local Resistance to Corporate Personhood Wages Crucial, if Symbolic, Battle
Sunday 25 September 2011
by: Britney Schultz, Truthout | Report


Move to Amend protestors demonstrating in Washington DC, January 21, 
2011. (Photo:takomabibelot)

In the 2010 US Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election 
Commission, the judges of the highest court in the land narrowly ruled 
that corporations were "people" with First Amendment free speech rights. 
The corollary of this judgment is that corporations, as "persons," have 
the right to contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns as an 
exercise of their free speech.

On the one-year anniversary of the landmark decision, a survey conducted 
by Hart Research found that only 22 percent of American voters were even 
familiar with the Citizens United case. However, the same study showed 
that nearly four in five (79 percent) of Americans were in favor of 
passing an amendment to overturn the decision and clarify that 
corporations should not have the same rights as people.

Accordingly, numerous groups have pushed for action in response to the 
case - and some have met with recent success, particularly at the local 
level. One such organization, the national Move to Amendcampaign, has 
approached the issue by mobilizing grassroots activism and calling for 
an amendment to the US Constitution to establish that only human beings, 
not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and that the 
First Amendment does not protect unlimited political spending as free 
speech.

The organization states that its first priority this year is to help 
organize communities aiming to pass localresolutions.

On August 16, the City Council of Boulder, Colorado, voted to place a 
referendum on this year's November ballot calling for the US 
Constitution to be amended to reflect that corporations are not people 
and money does not equal speech.

However, according to the leading proponent of the measure, Carolyn 
Bninski, it was an uphill battle with the city council. "City council 
was divided from the start; some said it wasn't a 'local' issue, so we 
didn't have any business putting it out there for voters to decide - 
basically they called it a waste of time," Bninski said.

Additionally, Bninski cited opposition from council members on grounds 
that the language of the resolution was too vague and may harm 
nonprofits and other organizations that are also protected under the 
umbrella term "corporation."

Bninski is a leading volunteer of the committee that is organizing the 
Issue 2H campaign, and says that the issue is about more than just 
getting people to pass a referendum in Boulder. "This isn't just about 
Boulder overturning the decision made in the Citizens United case," she 
said. "It's about educating people and getting them involved in our 
political process to reclaim our democracy."

Even if the measure passes this fall, however, the success would only be 
symbolic. An amendment to the US Constitution requires a two-thirds 
supermajority in both the House and Senate and ratification by 
three-quarters of state Legislatures. Another route to amending the 
Constitution would be to call for a Convention of the US Legislature by 
two-thirds of the state Legislatures, followed by ratification of the 
amendment by three-quarters of the states.

Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a member of the Move to Amend Executive 
Committee, pointed out the substantial power of a symbolic document such 
as a local resolution. "The Declaration of Independence was also once 
just a symbolic document," she said. "But it was the foundation of this 
country, and it sparked a revolution."

Not every community has faced the difficulties that Boulder has in 
proposing similar ballot measures.

Cynthia Wolken, a member of city council in Missoula, Montana, was the 
driving force behind presenting a resolution to her fellow council 
members.  Wolken put forward a resolution in August, after voicing 
concern about the influence of money in Montana's politics and the use 
of political action committees (PACs) to control elections.

"[City council] could have just passed a resolution stating that 
Missoula does not recognize corporations as human beings at a meeting 
without calling for the issue to go to the ballot, but the public would 
likely not even be aware of it," Wolken said "I wanted to use the 
opportunity to educate people and show unity in our community that 
Missoula supports amending the US Constitution."

Missoula's referendum on this November's ballot comes at a time when 
Montana's corporate finance laws are at a crossroads.

Wednesday, September 21, the Montana Supreme Court heard oral arguments 
from "friends of the court" in order to decide whether to toss out the 
state's century-old state ban on direct corporate spending for or 
against the candidates.

The main conservative lobbying group challenging the law, the American 
Tradition Partnership (ATP), has deemed the ban "unconstitutional," 
since the 2010 Citizens United ruling states that the federal government 
could not ban political spending in elections by corporations, and 
federal law trumps state law.

Montana's Supreme Court justices were skeptical of keeping the state law 
in place because it conflicted with federal law, but also voiced concern 
about the plaintiff's own evasive political activities, including ATP's 
lawsuit against state laws that require groups to disclose how they 
spend their campaigncontributions.

Montana has a history of corruption in politics. The "Copper Kings" were 
the copper mining industry special interests that exercised undue 
influence in the state's electoral politics in the late 1890s and early 
1900s. In response, the state passed the Montana Corrupt Practices Act 
of 1912 to limit corporate power.

Montana is one of 24 states in the country to have state laws regarding 
campaign finance limits. The state's ban does not exclude PACs from the 
election process, however, and corporations can still funnel influence 
into campaigns through this route.

A spokesman for the Montana Supreme Court said that the date the court 
would reach a decision was unclear at this time.

The Montana Attorney General's office did not return calls for comment.

"This case is just the tip of the iceberg," Wolken said. "There will be 
a lot of lawsuits filed against other states with such campaign finance 
laws."
____________________End forwarded material.______________________
-- 
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
This article is a fascinating look at the likely future of oil use:
http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/508186-the-peak-oil-crisis-the-german
The screw from mile 81 of Bike The Limits is now on a 1998 quarter.