Horrific Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance. Time to Amend the Constitution: Corporations Are Not Persons!

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court just issued a horrific decision on campaign finance laws. In Citizens United v. the FEC, it lifted the restrictions on independent corporate expenditures during elections, thus driving a stake into the heart of McCain-Feingold. As a result, corporations are going to have a field day at the ballot box.
“Starting today,” Justice John Paul Stevens warned in his brilliant and impassioned dissent, “corporations with large war chests to deploy on electioneering may find democratically elected bodies becoming much more attuned to their interests.” In conclusion, he wrote: “The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, threw out decades of Supreme Court precedents so as to coddle corporate expenditures on elections. Writing in the most sweeping way, he declared that “political speech or corporations or other associations” cannot “be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not ‘natural persons.’ ”
The logic of this argument would throw out all restrictions on corporate expenditures, even direct gifts to candidates, though the majority didn’t quite go there. But it went everywhere else.
It asserted, astonishingly, and without evidence, that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” And it asserted that “no sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit organizations.”
Not even corruption.
If we are to obtain even the semblance of democratic self-rule, we need a constitutional amendment overturning this decision. Such an amendment should state explicitly that corporations are not persons and do not deserve the protections under the law that individuals enjoy. Nor should corporations be able to use their funds for direct contributions to candidates or for so-called independent expenditures designed to influence the outcome of an election.
Fortunately, there is a grassroots effort under way to do just that. It’s called MovetoAmend.org. One of the chief goals of the amendment, the group says, is to “firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.”
Please go to MovetoAmend.org and sign the petition to get this amendment rolling, right now.
It’s the only way we can have a chance at democracy in America.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine. To subscribe for just $14.97 a year, just click here.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead
|
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
Arun Gupta and Michelle Fawcett | We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
Breanna Lembitz | I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
Ed Rampell | The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
Stephanie Fairyington | March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Ruth Conniff at the People's Legislature in Madison
Standing for Justice at the Capitol. Matthew Rothschild.
Come to Progressive Talks and Events
Feb. 18, 5:30 p.m.
Ruth Conniff, Progressive Principles Conference at Yale University 11-1
Read more >>
Thursday February 16 at 7:30 p.m.
VandeBurg Room, Pyle Center. Madison, WI
Not Just Gandhi: The Tradition of Nonviolence Among Muslims in South Asia
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>
Friday February 17 at 7:30 p.m. Kate Clinton at the Barrymore with Michael Feldman in Madison.
Thursday February 23 at 3:30 p.m.
Garden Key Room, Student Union, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
Islam Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>








Comments
Socialism in the United States:
Medicaid and Medicare
Social Security retirement benefits
Social Security disability benefits
Public libraries
Workers' compensation for workplace injuries
Unemployment benefits
Public schools and universities
Financial aid for students
Mass transit
Food stamps
Section 8 housing
Home heating oil assistance
The public roads
The police department
The fire department
The local water agthority
The national parks
The sanitation department
The local sewer system
The postal service
Etcetera
Corporatism in the United States:
The automobile industry
The airline industry
The credit card companies
The big banks
The health insurance industry
The pharmaceutical industry
Etcetera
Question: Which of these are run well at an affordable cost, and which require huge taxpayer bailouts?
Corporations are not the state. Corporations seek to undermine the state. And while our socialist institutions exist to serve the public good, corporations exist to enrich themselves, often causing great harm to the public in the process.
We are the only industrialized country that lacks universal healthcare precisely because we are the only industrialized country that lacks a robust socialist party. Even in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia the people have access to the medical services they need.
Are Americans less deserving of democracy than the French? Less deserving of health services than the Venezuelans? We need more socialism, not less.