As part of a national "Occupy the Courts" day, this Friday, between noon an 1 pm, Occupy the Courts will have a rally north of the federal courthouse as part of a movement to overturn the Citizens United decision by constitutional amendment. See http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2012/01/el-deguello-citizens-united-or-we.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGUfVIoyhhc

Here's their poster:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/occupy-the-courts.jpg

Is a case even up for decision? Without that there is not anything the courts can do unilaterally to change a prior ruling.

The main advocacy group, MoveToAmend.org (http://movetoamend.org/ok-oklahoma-city), is leading a movement for a constitutional amendment, like I said in my 1st post. From http://movetoamend.org/amendment, the proposed amendment is shown below.




Move to Amend 28th Amendment

Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

I'm behind that amendment 100%. Would even be interested in getting involved in organization efforts. Rallies in front of courthouses, not so much. Being part of something getting our legislature (as part of the 38 state legislatures needed to ratify such an animal) to approve such an Amendment, I could see being a part of something like that.

Midtowner, try http://www.facebook.com/okcmovetoamend

Left, right, center, upside-down ---- everyone should support this.

I'll have to think on the wording a bit but I am 100% in favor of the theory.

I presume that many here have already seen Steven Colbert's Comedy Central video ... er, that of the Super PAC which is supporting him ("Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow"), which is a total hoot ... but for those who've not seen it, here it is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YLuI0ZWfXE

Really, it shouldn't be impossible to get 38 state legislatures to sign on to this sort of amendment.

Really, it shouldn't be impossible to get 38 state legislatures to sign on to this sort of amendment.

The states are the easy part. Getting both house of Congress to pass it by 2/3 in each will be hard. They would be turning down a lot of money. I don't see them doing it.

How about every member of Congress who votes against it gets replaced.
Not necessarily in the old, tried and true Soviet manner . . . but replaced.
And then becomes a "non-person" . . .

Love the '60s Style fist with the gavel.
Inspired.

The wording on that amendment is horrendous. Beyond horrendous.

If your intent is to get speech protection removed from corporations, then the amendment you want is one that specifically removes corporations from the umbrella of language used to include them in the class of entities given protected speech rights.

I, personally, am not ready to criminalize or suppress the expression of individuals working together in a corporate manner to express their political views, no matter how egregious I may find the abuse of that discretion among certain examples in our society. I'm trying to understand the threshold at which the people that comprise a corporation lose their free speech rights merely for the fact they've chosen to organize as a "corporation," and enjoy the efficiencies of acting in concert rather than individually. If I choose to send $20 to a corporately-organized PAC of my choice because I recognize they represent my views corporately more effectively than I do individually, why should I be prevented from doing so?

Ugly thing this "free speech."

Perhaps we need to reconsider our ethnocentric, monoculturalist, objection to Sharia Law.
I am confident it speaks quite clearly to issues like this.
(With no ifs, ands or buts)

The wording on that amendment is horrendous. Beyond horrendous.

If your intent is to get speech protection removed from corporations, then the amendment you want is one that specifically removes corporations from the umbrella of language used to include them in the class of entities given protected speech rights.

I, personally, am not ready to criminalize or suppress the expression of individuals working together in a corporate manner to express their political views, no matter how egregious I may find the abuse of that discretion among certain examples in our society. I'm trying to understand the threshold at which the people that comprise a corporation lose their free speech rights merely for the fact they've chosen to organize as a "corporation," and enjoy the efficiencies of acting in concert rather than individually. If I choose to send $20 to a corporately-organized PAC of my choice because I recognize they represent my views corporately more effectively than I do individually, why should I be prevented from doing so?

Ugly thing this "free speech."

I don't think anyone is talking about criminalizing it, just regulating it so it can do less harm. Citizens United has given rise to a corporate cronyism which we won't be able to cast off without some Constitutional change.

The states are the easy part. Getting both house of Congress to pass it by 2/3 in each will be hard. They would be turning down a lot of money. I don't see them doing it.

That's not the only way to amend the Constitution.

If 2/3 of the states' legislatures declare a constitutional convention, they can do so. The convention can propose one or more amendments. Then 3/4 of the states have to approve.

Hey. Stop with all that vaguely 10th Amendment related, Constitutional graveyard digging, already.
Some people might find it offensive. It flies in the face of The New Whirled Order.

If I were a gamblin' man . . . (which I'm not)
I'd be willing to bet that the odds are on the side of The Alternative Amendment process.

By-Pass The Congressional Corruption completely.
Checks and Balances. No Revolutionary Bloodshed.
Minimal application of tear gas.

(Except for the tears of joy I shed a few minutes ago listening to The Big O gassing about his feeble attempt to re-explain and re-define the soon to be remodeled "quote" on one section of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's Memorial. It was the thing about being a "drum major" . . . Even more misquoted than the original intent of the remark that became an inscription.)

These are the remarks of President Obama a week following the Citizens United decision, extracted from his State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v-rJb8G15I

That's not the only way to amend the Constitution.

If 2/3 of the states' legislatures declare a constitutional convention, they can do so. The convention can propose one or more amendments. Then 3/4 of the states have to approve.

True, but since that route had never been done I didn't think you were proposing that option. I would love to see a constitutional convention.

Corporations are people... Duh.

Corporations are people... Duh.

...but unborn babies aren't. Go figure.

not trying to start an abortion debate - just making a point of reference.

On December 8, 2011, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I) took the Senate floor to introduce a constitutional amendment sponsored by him and by Alaska Senator Mark Begich (D) (an identical resolution was introduced in the House by Florida Rep. Ted Deutch (D) on November 18, 2011)):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKAX4lU1zZI

Here is the text of Senator Sanders' proposed amendment:





Senate Joint Resolution
112th Congress, 1st Session

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on __________

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.


JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:


‘‘ARTICLE __

‘‘SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

‘‘SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

‘‘SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’.

Rep. Ted Deutch's proposed amendment was actually introduced in the House earlier, on November 18, 2011, and except for the House/Senate prefatory portions, the actual content of the House and Senate versions is identical.

Why limit this to for-profit corporations? Non-profits are creations of the state as well and they are not people either. I would have to vote this down. Makes me wonder what their true objective is when they start descriminating between types of companies in the Constitution. Ban them all. Only Humans are people.

Why limit this to for-profit corporations? Non-profits are creations of the state as well and they are not people either. I would have to vote this down. Makes me wonder what their true objective is when they start descriminating between types of companies in the Constitution. Ban them all. Only Humans are people.

They have to limit it to for-profit corps, or else they have to construct a "means" test to decide which corporations are "allowed" to speak and which aren't. They don't want to go down that slippery slope, because they *know* that's where it will end up.

Enact this, and I can easily envision the day when a private business owner, who just happened to incorporate his business, puts up a pro-whomever sign in his place of business, and the Corporate Contribution Police deems it to have been an "in-kind contribution," and have him fined and/or thrown in prison.

This is a horrendous amendment, and I will actively work to oppose it. Corporations, no matter how you slice it, are comprised of people, and people have rights, whether its one, or ten thousand.

... Only Humans are people.

And sometimes even that seems questionable.

This is a horrendous amendment, and I will actively work to oppose it. Corporations, no matter how you slice it, are comprised of people, and people have rights, whether its one, or ten thousand.
I've got you done for two (2) votes "Nay," SoonerDave. As to why unions and not-for-profits were not included in the Sanders proposal, I'm interested in hearing the rationale for those choices, also.

I've got you done for two (2) votes "Nay," SoonerDave. As to why unions and not-for-profits were not included in the Sanders proposal, I'm interested in hearing the rationale for those choices, also.

Thanks, Doug :)

I would be most interested in that rationale as well.

Corporations are people... Duh.

So why don't they have the right to vote in all elections, then?

So why don't they have the right to vote in all elections, then?

I am still waiting for Westinghouse to be called for jury duty. I am not even sure how that would work. I assume Westinghouse would only get one of the 12 seats on the jury. Who would represent Westinghouse? The CEO, the Chairman of the Board, The entire Board of Directors, every employee? Would they vote for the facts of the case or would they act in the best interest of Westinghouse? What if they got on the OJ trial and had to be sequestered for 9 months?

I am still waiting for Westinghouse to be called for jury duty. I am not even sure how that would work. I assume Westinghouse would only get one of the 12 seats on the jury. Who would represent Westinghouse? The CEO, the Chairman of the Board, The entire Board of Directors, every employee? Would they vote for the facts of the case or would they act in the best interest of Westinghouse? What if they got on the OJ trial and had to be sequestered for 9 months?

Westinghouse is an executioner, seems like a conflict of interest. LOL

I am still waiting for Westinghouse to be called for jury duty. ... What if they got on the OJ trial and had to be sequestered for 9 months?How about Sony, Toyota, Siemens, or any of the other multinationals? Also, if they are people then they should have not only the rights but also the duties of people, such as registering for the draft, and serving prison time if convicted of felonies...

Perhaps the best way of making this stupid legal fiction obvious to everyone will be to carry it to extremes via carefully crafted legal cases posing such points...

Jim, some carefully crafted comedic episodes on Comedy Central seem to be doing this more quickly, as well, this one on January 17 ... as you know, the pen (in this case, the video) can be mightier than the sword (I was unable to embed the video here) ...


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-17-2012/colbert-super-pac---not-coordinating-with-stephen-colbert?xrs=share_copy

What's the impact of this satirical comedy? Who can say. These observations are from Ft. Worth's Star Telegram's Linda Campbell (http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/18/3670034/can-colbert-nation-upend-the-south.html):




Stephen Colbert, the Comedy Central faux pundit, wrote to the commission endorsing Rove's request: "A ruling that allows outside groups to produce ads with the candidate's cooperation, themes and message," Colbert said, would "prove to our nation's critics that America is a country that still makes something: strained rationalizations."

Colbert has made a running parody of the absurd depths to which campaign funding has fallen. It's brilliant, skewering satire. His super PAC, funded by viewer donations, started as Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow and ran an ad in which low-profile GOP candidate Buddy Roemer got around the "coordination" rule by saying it was an issue ad he wished he weren't in.

Because Colbert wanted to run in the Republican presidential primary of his home state of South Carolina, he handed his super PAC to fellow late-night comic Jon Stewart and renamed it The Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC -- all under the grinning eye of his lawyer, Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who advised George H.W. Bush and John McCain.

Colbert couldn't get on the ballot, but former candidate Herman Cain is still listed. So Colbert has been mischievously pumping his viewers who are registered South Carolina voters to support him by marking their ballots for Cain. It's a deliciously devious scheme with the potential to mobilize real political action.

A group called Move to Amend is protesting Citizens United in a more conventional way, organizing an Occupy the Courts day for Friday and promoting the idea of a constitutional amendment declaring that corporations and labor unions don't have the same rights as human beings.

It seems like a sincere exercise of the time-honored right to free assembly, with events planned for federal courthouses in more than 130 cities, from Dallas and San Antonio to Missoula, Mont., Central Islip, N.Y., and Dothan, Ala.

But forgive me for doubting they'll rock the system. For goodness' sake, their New York City march is planned for the height of rush hour, with an evening rally after the courthouse has closed for the day.

I'm expecting more impact from Colbert's subversives.

Estimates I've seen range from 80 to 100 Occupy the Courts locations around the country sometime tomorrow. The 3 that I'm aware of in Oklahoma are:


Oklahoma City (http://movetoamend.org/ok-oklahoma-city), noon to 1 pm in front of the Federal Court Building on NW 4th

Tulsa (http://movetoamend.org/events/tulsa-ok-occupy-courts-occupy-tulsa-general-assembly), 8 a.m. in front of the Federal Courthouse Building at 224 S. Boulder Ave., and

Woodward (http://movetoamend.org/events/occupy-courts-woodward-county-ok), 12:30 pm - 11:30 pm, Woodward County Courthouse Lawn.


If there are other Oklahoma events, I'm not aware of them.

Why limit this to for-profit corporations? Non-profits are creations of the state as well and they are not people either. I would have to vote this down. Makes me wonder what their true objective is when they start descriminating between types of companies in the Constitution. Ban them all. Only Humans are people.

Non profits are already prohibited from engaging in partisan activity.

Perhaps the best way of making this stupid legal fiction obvious to everyone will be to carry it to extremes via carefully crafted legal cases posing such points...

Despite all the absurdities posted here, nothing or no one has explained how there are any protections from this "stupid legal fiction" that protects small, incorporated business owner when he puts a political poster on the front of his building, and is declared to have behaved in an unconstitutional way.

I find that "absurdity" to be considerably more probable than all the silliness about juries and the draft. We're talking about the rights of people who happen to be organized as a corporation expressing political speech, and crafting an amendment to make that behavior illegal. That boggles the mind. We're so busy writhing in righteous indignation at the abuses of the large corporations that we don't seem to care the least about protecting the rights of the small individual who dares to express a political opinion in a corporate fashion.

Non profits are already prohibited from engaging in partisan activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization


In contrast to the absolute prohibition on political campaign interventions by all section 501(c)(3) organizations, public charities (but not private foundations) may conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "No substantial part..." of a public charity's activities can go to lobbying, charities with large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test), or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying.[26]

However, with restrictions already in place then I see no reason to not add them to the constitutional ban, because as we know, Congress could just change exitsing law after the fact giving them away around the constitutional amendment.

Despite all the absurdities posted here, nothing or no one has explained how there are any protections from this "stupid legal fiction" that protects small, incorporated business owner when he puts a political poster on the front of his building, and is declared to have behaved in an unconstitutional way.

I find that "absurdity" to be considerably more probable than all the silliness about juries and the draft. We're talking about the rights of people who happen to be organized as a corporation expressing political speech, and crafting an amendment to make that behavior illegal. That boggles the mind. We're so busy writhing in righteous indignation at the abuses of the large corporations that we don't seem to care the least about protecting the rights of the small individual who dares to express a political opinion in a corporate fashion.I see nothing in the proposed amendment that prohibits any actual person from expressing an opinion, and displaying a poster is an accepted procedure for doing so. What would be applicable in the case you cite would be paying for having that poster printed. If the owner paid from his personal funds, it would be acceptable. If he paid for it from the corporate accounts, it would be a violation. I see no problem at all with such a situation, and I've been in that exact situation as a director of a small business corporation (it turned out to be non-profit, although not meant as such, but that's another story).

While voting, jury duty, and the like are of course silliness, there are some quite serious sides to the question also. Unlike biological people, the corporate "person" is immortal. If the legal fiction that corporations are people must be preserved, then in the interests of non-discrimination they should be given, at creation, a fixed life span not to exceed 125 years, but the exact duration should remain unknown in advance just as for the rest of us mortals. The resulting uncertainty of continued existence should definitely change the outlook of senior management, who would be forced to provide for inheritance and so on.

Another discriminatory area is that of taxation. The corporate "person" should not have favorable tax rates, but should be bound by the same rules that apply to the rest of us...

"Person-hood" can be a very mixed blessing, if rational logic ever enters into its definition!

Jim, Section 3 of the proposed amendment says only "contributions." Not "financial" contributions. So, again, I see nothing that would prevent the criminalization of someone contributing their speech to the campaign in the manner described. And I specifically noted that the contribution was deemed "in-kind," and there was no such qualification excepting those kinds of contributions, either.

The additional problem completely outside the realm of politics that this amendment, as written, brings is the complete removal of corporate entities from due process. If it is expressly defined that only literal people are extended the protection of due process, then corporations can be brought before any arbitrary jurisdiction and have no right to trial, no right to be heard, no right of representation - all because Section 1 says that those very rights belong only to people.

Again, folks move away from the Evil Giant Corporation notion. I'm talking about protecting the little guy - that private business owner who happens to incorporate. He now has zero protection from every frivolous lawsuit to be brought upon him.

Again, folks move away from the Evil Giant Corporation notion. I'm talking about protecting the little guy - that private business owner who happens to incorporate. He now has zero protection from every frivolous lawsuit to be brought upon him.A simple solution for this specific problem would be to add an additional modifier: in addition to "for-profit" make it apply to "public" corporations, so as to exclude private corporations. Almost all of the "little guy" corporations that concern you are set up as private with a very limited number of stockholders. Most of the "Evil Giant" ones are public, and they are the ones that seem to generate the majority of problems.

Granted, some exceptions exist. In the days of control by the Gaylord family, OPubCo was private. It may still be under the new owners. And it would be possible for political manipulators to charter a private corporation for the specific but hidden purpose of buying a political office -- but in such a case, existing criminal conspiracy law might well be applicable. And meanwhile, many of the problems created by the current situation could be solved...

A simple solution for this specific problem would be to add an additional modifier: in addition to "for-profit" make it apply to "public" corporations, so as to exclude private corporations.

Why should either type of corporation be entitled to an exception? Merely because they're publicly held?

The point here is that when you realize there exists a legitimate reason to craft One More Exception to "fix" a problem, you realize the problem isn't the ability to craft the exception - its the fact the exception needs to be crafted in the first place. And then another exception. And then another. And then you discover the amendment wasn't very well thought out to begin with.


And meanwhile, many of the problems created by the current situation could be solved...

All due respect, Jim, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see how we solve any problems by constitutionally decreasing the freedom that very document is supposed to ensure. I believe the notion that this amendment solves all or many of these perceived problems is well-intended, but unfathomably naive. People in this country have been free to speak for 235 years, and I just can't abide the idea that we protect our nation's future by silencing it.

All due respect, Jim, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see how we solve any problems by constitutionally decreasing the freedom that very document is supposed to ensure. I believe the notion that this amendment solves all or many of these perceived problems is well-intended, but unfathomably naive. People in this country have been free to speak for 235 years, and I just can't abide the idea that we protect our nation's future by silencing it.We've already introduced severe restrictions on our freedom to speak, by establishing so-called "free speech zones" and prohibiting it elsewhere. IMO there should be only ONE free speech zone, and it should encompass all 50 states fully, plus all US territories and other possessions.

I think the crux of the matter is that no organization of any sort should be accorded the same rights as people themselves. I have no problem with placing severe limitations on the rights of organizations as such, so long as they do not restrict the rights of the individuals who comprise that organization. This specifically includes PACs, labor unions, corporations, political parties, and trade associations.

Any such limitations, however, should be non-discriminatory and apply equally to all organizations of the same type. Outlawing the Ku Klux Klan as a racist organization while permitting the NAACP to continue, for instance, would not be acceptable -- but outlawing cross burning, intimidation, and murder would be quite okay so long as the restrictions applied equally to everyone. Note that I'm not suggesting that the example organizations are totally equivalent to each other, but both of them promote certain goals that are defined in terms of race...

SoonerDave, given your statements, do you then have no problems with either or both of the super PACs which were involved in our city council elections last year?

SoonerDave, given your statements, do you then have no problems with either or both of the super PACs which were involved in our city council elections last year?

I hate that those "superPACs" were involved, primarily because I understood their motivations and, in turn, understood why one of them was disseminating ridiculously and demonstrably false information about (at least) one candidate, but that's another issue (one that should be handled by our libel laws, but I digress). So, yeah, in that vein, I had a serious problem with their intrusion into the election. But does that problem extend to the desire to enact an omnibus constitutional amendment with the altruistic motive of limiting their involvement? Not when it seems clear the unintended consequences of that amendment seem ripe with opportunities for abuse that would curtail the free speech opportunities of the very people those who advocate the amendment presumably want to protect - the average, John Q. Public voter.

I think the presence of the PAC's in a city council election highlights several *other* problems, however; the inadequacy of our OKC's current council-based form of government, particularly as it relates to the consolidation of too much power across too few elected representatives. I think OKC has outgrown that governing model, but that's another discussion. If our city government had finer-grained representation, and those representatives were paid enough to make the notion of serving as a representative attractive, it makes it much harder for things like those PACs to exert their influence. Not impossible, but harder. Like I said, that's another discussion.

PAC's in and of themselves aren't necessarily a bad thing. Individuals of a common interest who find natural efficiencies in combining their efforts to espouse a particular position on any issue, whether its public bubble-gum chewing to gun control, should be able to do so, including contributing to the candidates that organization may choose to endorse.

I think there is a case to be made that such contributions should fall within what might be termed an area of vested interest, akin to what the legal system considers "standing." I may file a lawsuit against whomever I wish, but it doesn't mean I have the legal ground or position to prevail. In that vein, I think great scrutiny would fall on entities in, as an example, Dallas or Kansas City seen contributing extensively to an Oklahoma City council election.

It isn't an easy nut to crack, I grant you, but I just don't see this amendment as the solution.

It isn't an easy nut to crack, I grant you, but I just don't see this amendment as the solution.
Is there a rewording of either proposed amendment (that advocated by MoveToAmend.org or that introduced by Sanders) that you would consider, and possibly approve, or is your opposition to a constitutional amendment across the board?

As to our municipal election SuperPac ads (and push/pull phone surveys) I seriously doubt that any actionable defamatory words/phrases were used, but, even if there were, who would the defendant be, the SuperPac? If so, who would pay any resulting judgment, the SuperPac?

I won't get into our municipal form of government, since that is not relevant to this discussion, in my opinion.

As for the worthwhile-ness of political action committees, generally, I don't see that that is relevant, either, given the disclosure and limits that are in place ... that is the case, isn't it?

Doug,

I understand and agree that the discussion about municipal gov'ts and the relative utility of PAC's is secondary to the issue at hand. I was merely illustrating (not terribly effectively) the notion that part of the problem we're trying to solve with a single solution really doesn't address other root causes of the same kinds of problems. Hope you didn't think I was trying to derail the discussion - was not my intent. I realize I'm on the minority end here on this thread, but I want to provide reasoned discussion as best I can stressing I'm not enamored of corporations buying legislators, either, but we have to make sure what we're doing when we start opting to modify the Constitution.

I will consider carefully whether I think there could be an amendment to address the issue at hand that I could live with. Certainly a reasonable suggestion on how to deal with the problem.

Here's an overview of several "28th" proposals... http://unitedrepublic.org/amendments-guide

OR, we can make it really easy and join the rest of the world: Public Financing. It is clear from extra-constitutional documents that the early elections were paid from the treasury and that the founders thought it was part of the "general welfare" of the nation to do so. This is, in fact, not a liberal or conservative position, it's the only way forward to get big money out of politics - which has our republic teetering.

Within the last three hours, H.J. Res 100 was introduced in the United States House of Representatives....simple.

Section 1. All campaigns for President and Members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate shall be financed entirely with public funds. No contributions shall be permitted to any candidate for Federal office from any other source, including the candidate.

Section 2. No expenditures shall be permitted in support of any candidate for Federal office, or in opposition to any candidate for Federal office, from any other source, including the candidate. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Section 3. The Congress shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds.

Section 4. The Congress shall, by statute, provide criminal penalties for any violation of this Article.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I'll offer right now that the notion of exclusively publicly financed campaigns is the one that kept recurring to me as one viable option. Nobody spends a penny to support a candidate, and each candidate gets exactly the same amount of "warchest" money. That option comes as close to leveling the playing field as any. But it works only if everyone is treated exactly the same.

I will consider carefully whether I think there could be an amendment to address the issue at hand that I could live with. Certainly a reasonable suggestion on how to deal with the problem.
One (I, at least) could not ask for more than that. I look forward to hearing what you might come up with.

Here's an overview of several "28th" proposals... http://unitedrepublic.org/amendments-guide

OR, we can make it really easy and join the rest of the world: Public Financing. It is clear from extra-constitutional documents that the early elections were paid from the treasury and that the founders thought it was part of the "general welfare" of the nation to do so. This is, in fact, not a liberal or conservative position, it's the only way forward to get big money out of politics - which has our republic teetering.

Within the last three hours, H.J. Res 100 was introduced in the United States House of Representatives....simple.

Section 1. All campaigns for President and Members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate shall be financed entirely with public funds. No contributions shall be permitted to any candidate for Federal office from any other source, including the candidate.

Section 2. No expenditures shall be permitted in support of any candidate for Federal office, or in opposition to any candidate for Federal office, from any other source, including the candidate. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Section 3. The Congress shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds.

Section 4. The Congress shall, by statute, provide criminal penalties for any violation of this Article.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's an interesting proposed amendment, but you'd probably need more to squarely deal with the freedom of speech elements of the Citizens United decision, as well individuals' (including candidates') free speech issues, else the three (your proposal, Citizens United, and individual free speech issues) ... otherwise, your proposal wouldn't necessarily deal with the latter two categories of things.

We seem to have lost our way here. I thought we were discussing a constitutional amendament that companies (public/private/for profit/non-profit/big/small) are creations of the states and not entitled to the protections or the responsibilities outlined in the US Constitution. Somehow we got on to campaign financing.

Because that's what the Citizens United decision dealt with, but it opened the door to much wider abuse of corporate personhood...

Today's Oklahoman coverage of the Occupy The Courts rally in front of the federal courthouse during the noon hour yesterday was pretty Spartan, but at least the event was covered. The following "page" from the Metro section of the paper shows the relatively small amount of space devoted to the event -- a pair of photos and photo captions:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/oklahoman_1_21_2012.jpg

The Oklahoman did show two photos, both by Steve Sisney ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/oklahoman2_steve_sisney_1_21_2012.jpg

About the above image, the Oklahoman's text reads, "Annie Stueber, of Tryon, joins protesters Friday in Oklahoma City to speak out against the Citizens United ruling, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that removed most limits on corporate and labor spending in federal elections. Occupy Wall Street activists joined forces with Move to Amend, a grassroots coalition that organized the event in more than 100 cities."

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/oklahoman1_steve_sisney_1_21_2012.jpg

About the above photo, the Oklahoman's text reads, "Jacob Miramontes and Soley Thrastardotter join protesters Friday at Oklahoma City's Federal Courthouse, where petition drives were being kicked off for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling."

There was no actual "article" present in the Oklahoman, just the above graphics and the above photo captions.

The Tulsa World did actually carry an article, even if brief, about Tulsa's corresponding event. Jerry Woffard's article in the Tulsa World (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120120_11_0_Agroup696573) provided 4 images (two are shown below):

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/tulsaworld2_john_clanton_1_20_2012.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/tulsaworld_john_clanton_1_20_2012.jpg

The accompanying article by Jerry Woffard read,




Occupy Tulsa, other demonstrators gather at federal courthouse

A group of protesters demonstrated outside a federal courthouse building in downtown Tulsa on Friday as part of a nationwide demonstration.

The demonstration included members of the Occupy Tulsa movement, who have been holding protests around the city since fall.

Friday’s demonstration at the courthouse, 224 S. Boulder Ave., is to mark the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, which stated the government cannot limit independent spending by corporations and unions for political purposes under the First Amendment.

Supporters of the decision say it allows more involvement in the political process.

Opponents contend the decision gives too much power and influence to corporations and unions.

The demonstrations across the country are part of the Move to Amend movement, which seeks to amend the Constitution to reign in what they see as the unchecked influence of corporations and unions.

Tulsa Police officers were on hand at the demonstration in downtown, as the protesters marched from the federal building to the Chapman Centennial Green at Sixth and Main streets, where the Occupy Tulsa movement sprouted, and back to the federal building Friday afternoon.

I also checked for the 3rd Oklahoma venue, Woodward, in the Woodward Daily News (http://woodwardnews.net/). The on-line version of that paper doesn't appear to have covered Woodward's event at all but perhaps it was mentioned in the print version, I don't know.

Health issues prevented my attendance in Oklahoma City, but I'm trying to scrounge up a few more Oklahoma City photos of yesterday's rally.

I've also added a poll in my blog about the Citizens United decision and I've attempted to include all logical possibilities, though I may not have succeeded. The poll is in the upper left pane of my blog (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/). The poll will end on July 1, 2012, at noon. As I saw those possibilities, they are:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/poll1.jpg

I invite your participation in the poll, regardless of your opinion about the Citizens United decision.

Despite all the absurdities posted here, nothing or no one has explained how there are any protections from this "stupid legal fiction" that protects small, incorporated business owner when he puts a political poster on the front of his building, and is declared to have behaved in an unconstitutional way.

I find that "absurdity" to be considerably more probable than all the silliness about juries and the draft. We're talking about the rights of people who happen to be organized as a corporation expressing political speech, and crafting an amendment to make that behavior illegal. That boggles the mind. We're so busy writhing in righteous indignation at the abuses of the large corporations that we don't seem to care the least about protecting the rights of the small individual who dares to express a political opinion in a corporate fashion.

Sorry you can't have it both ways. Incorporation was designed to separate the individual from the business. The owner cannot play fast and loose with personal business overlapping into corporate business. Either he/she is representing the company and acting on behalf of the company or they are not. IMO, they should be perfectly free to speak and act personally and have all the freedoms we all enjoy and want to protect and it should be criminal to do so politically on behalf of the corporation, in the same way there are many limits placed on dealing with corporations inside and outside that entity. If one is not up the challenge of learning the law and acting responsibly under a corporate umbrella (should limits become the law) one has no business assuming that form.

Precisely!!!

I've received a couple of photos from Rena Guay, one of OKC's Occupy The Courts rally coordinators. They are shown below:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/rena_guay_1_January20_2012.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/rena_guay_2_January20_2012.jpg

About the event, Rena said in an email to me that




We had a great event that exceeded my hopes. There were almost 60 people in attendance, including a large number of Change Oklahoma members and a contingent from Occupy Norman. Dr. Ed Shadid was our main speaker, and he gave the assembled citizens a good overview of the problems both in the ruling itself, and in trying to overturn it or address the concerns about unlimited, anonymous spending to influence elections. He noted that the ruling not only gave corporations the rights of "persons" but unions, non-profits and other groups joined in common cause. He feels that limits on the amount of contributions and disclosure of who is making them are the two most important things to focus on now.

We announced our next move, which is to work on local resolutions and investigate a statewide ballot initiative. We are asking an attorney from the National Lawyers Guild of Oklahoma to give us some info about this. We will have a planning meeting on Feb. 1 at 6:30 pm at Change Oklahoma, 2517 N. Western in OKC.

Midtowner (and anyone else interested), I thought that might interest you. I am planning to attend that February 1 6:30 pm meeting.

As to poll results (see the that poll that I posted yesterday, above), I haven't gotten many responses so far. But, at this point the votes are:


I am content with the Citizens United Decision and would not want to change it.
Votes: 1
Corporations are NOT people under the US Constitution and they should be prohibited from making ANY political contributions. I understand that this would require a constitutional amendment.
Votes: 6

Corporations are NOT people under the US Constitution but they should be allowed to make LIMITED political contributions coupled with identity disclosures. I understand that this would require a constitutional amendment.
Votes: 0
Corporations are NOT people under the US Constitution but they should be allowed to make UNLIMITED political contributions coupled with identity disclosures. I understand that this would require a constitutional amendment.
Votes: 0
None of the above.
Votes: 0

Doug,

The other day, you asked if there were any form of amendment (either new or via modification of those proposed) that I, personally, could abide in pursuit of resolution to the corporate donation issue. I know its been a couple of days since that request, and I didn't want you to think I had just abandoned the notion.

I took a good, hard look at what I think about the decision, the result, the problem, and what I believe about all sides of it. I understand completely the frustration of the quid pro quo that seems to be a part of corporate politics and donations, so I hope it isn't perceived that I'm an arbitrary corporate shill of some sort. I thought about this enough to sit down and actually read the majority SCOTUS opinion on the matter, and a good portion of the Stevens dissent. I was humbled at the depth of detail and history that went into this opinion, and realized that these decisions aren't reached capriciously. The volume of precedent, detail, and legality is a monument to the effort to preserve the system, flawed though it may be.

As I read that majority opinion, one of the overarching themes therein was the protection of the press, and secondarily, the court's abhorrence of the notion that the Government ever get into the business of creating what it termed "preferred speakers." Anyone reacting to this decision with the notion that First Amendment rights being extended to corporations is something new (as, I must admit, I did) or an arbitrary outgrowth of contemporary politics is mistaken. I was startled to realize precedent dating back years had established this extension as a matter of law. Ultimately, the court's holding that speech rights cannot be denied based on the "corporate identity of the speaker" stemmed from the very notion that it implied a compelling reason why the free exchange of ideas should be restricted merely for that corporate identity. The court then suggested quite clearly that most of our current news and related political information comes directly from corporations, and what would be the step to keep the Government from selectively declaring any particular undesirable political speech to be political, thus illegal, and then suppressed. We think of giant corporations, but what (as the opinion cited) about the blogger who offers a political opinion, only to find out that blog is paid for by some corporate funds? We've already seen precedent that bloggers aren't journalists, although I'm sure that will make its way through the courts. Clearly that's the reasoning behind the clauses in the proposed amendments that include phrasing such as "Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to limit freedom of the press." The problem isn't just speech from the press, the problem is how the amendments could easily be abused to suppress speech that bears little or no resemblance to the type sought for prohibition under these and similar amendments.

The dissent focused a great deal on the court's revisitation of the Austin legislation, and its frustration with the court engaging in its own form of judicial activism to rationalize a review of a prior decision upholding it, or other lower-court precedent that held it to be constitutional. What compels me to disagree with the bulk of that dissent (and I want to make it clear I was not able to read all of it) was on the basis of relying on prior lower court rulings, when it seemed the core issue was the overarching constitutionality of the issue those courts were dealing with. That's precisely what SCOTUS was for, and why Austin was set aside.

Sorry, I'm digressing. Ultimately, the court held that the government must not create, and has no authority under the First Amendment, to create classes of preferred speakers or speech. I realize now that any such amendment constitutionally establishes precisely that, to say nothing of the unintended consequences of suppressed speech as a result. Maybe I'm a latter-day radical, but no matter how much I may loathe the speech, or its form, I simply cannot overcome the idea that we want to incorporate into our Constitution the definition of a class of organizations that are deprived of that right, however narrowly (campaign contributions). As I said, I loathe what's going on with lobbying and the problem at hand. I don't pretend it doesn't exist. By the same token, I just cannot fathom how structuring a deprivation of speech makes any of us better off.

I know that'll put me at the wrong end of this discussion, but all I can offer is that its an honest opinion, and at a minimum, I hope folks can respect it.

And it doesn't come from a corporation. :)

Thanks for the challenge, Doug. Hope you believe I gave it some honest thought and a considered reply.

to create classes of preferred speakers or speech

Under current law, incorporation shifts power from some citizens to others by shifting risk from the corp owners to the individuals who make up the public. The result is advantage to the corp...power and money. When the corp uses that advantage for political gain you have done exactly that, created a preferred class of speakers, super citizens with economic advantage and more rights than others. This cannot be allowed to continue to corrupt our society.

Under current law, incorporation shifts power from some citizens to others by shifting risk from the corp owners to the individuals who make up the public. The result is advantage to the corp...power and money. When the corp uses that advantage for political gain you have done exactly that, created a preferred class of speakers, super citizens with economic advantage and more rights than others. This cannot be allowed to continue to corrupt our society.

The point is that the Government cannot get into the business of defining preferred speakers or speech. If we ever allow the Government to expressly define who may or may not speak, we have institutionalized the very concept you point out to be corrupting society - with the Government controlling who speaks, and who does not. We cannot let that happen.

My point is the Government effectively did that when they set the special rights to corps that ordinary citizens don't enjoy and along with that did not limit corporate participation in political speech. We need to clean that up. What makes the most sense, limiting corporate involvement in politics or taking away all those special rights?

Thanks for that thoughtful reply, Dave. It will take me awhile to digest it. In the meantime, I offer this for your consideration: the Oklahoma Constitution (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=85024&hits=) contains the following provision ... interesting stuff ... no cases are reported at OSCN which interpret this provision ...




Oklahoma Constitution, Article 9, § 40. Influencing elections or official duty.

No corporation organized or doing business in this State shall be permitted to influence elections or official duty by contributions of money or anything of value.

My point is the Government effectively did that when they set the special rights to corps that ordinary citizens don't enjoy and along with that did not limit corporate participation in political speech. We need to clean that up. What makes the most sense, limiting corporate involvement in politics or taking away all those special rights?

What special rights are you referring to, in particular?