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
“[A corporation is a] mere legal
entity…not a citizen.”
— BANK OF THE US V. DEVEAUX, 1809
“[A corporation is a] mere creature
of law [that] possesses only
those properties which the charter
confers upon it.”
— CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 1819
“[A corporation is] an artificial
being…existing only in contemplation
of law [and created only
for such] objects as the government
wishes to promote.”
— DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
“The only rights [a corporation]
can claim are the rights which are
given to it in that character, and
not the rights which belong to its
members as citizens of a state…”
— BANK OF AUGUSTA V. EARLE, 1839
“The liberty referred to in that
[Fourteenth] Amendment is the
liberty of natural, not artificial
persons.”
— NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIVE INS. CO.
V. RIGGS, 1906
“Neither the history nor the l
anguage of the Fourteenth
Amendment justifies the belief
that corporations are included
within its protections.”
— CONN. LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 1938
“It has been settled that corporations
are not entitled to all of the
constitutional protections which
private individuals have…”
— OKLAHOMA PRESS PUBLISHING CO.
V. WALLING, 1946
“It cannot be disputed that the
mere creation of a corporation
does not invest it with all the
liberties enjoyed by natural
persons…”
“It is thus an accepted part of the
business landscape in this country
for states to create corporations,
to prescribe their powers, and to
define the rights that are acquired
by purchasing their shares.”
— FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON
V. BELLOTTI, 1978
“The unique state-conferred corporate
structure that facilitates
the amassing of large treasuries
warrants the limit on independent
expenditures.”
— AUSTIN V. MICHIGAN CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, 1990
“[Restricting corporate] electioneering
communications [is based
on] legislative judgment that the
special characteristics of the corporate
structure require particularly
careful regulation.”
— MCCONNELL V. FEC, 2003