Bernie Sanders Introduces Constitutional Amendment: Corporations Are Not People
December 9, 2011Senator Bernie Sanders has just introduced a Constitutional amendment, S.J. Res 33, to ban corporate contributions to candidates and end their influence in the political process. The Hill has a good summary:
Sanders’s amendment, S.J.Res. 33, would state that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as persons, that corporations are subject to regulation, that corporations may not make campaign contributions and that Congress has the power to regulate campaign finance.
While the Citizens United case affected corporations, unions and other entities, the Sanders amendment focuses only on “for-profit corporations, limited liability companies or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests.”
Sanders said he has never proposed an amendment to the Constitution before, but said he sees no other alternative to reversing the Citizens United decision.
“In my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections,” he said. “I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about.”
This past summer, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said “corporations are people,” when fielding a question about whether taxes should be raised in order to increase federal revenues, which drew sharp reactions from Democrats.
The Sanders amendment is co-sponsored by Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), and a similar amendment has been proposed in the House by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.).
What do you think?
On face value it seems like a good idea, but with all things political, there may be unwanted consequences, for instance; is "personhood" what allows the government to tax corporations? I've heard that thrown about on Facebook. What is Sander's motivation to bite the hand (of corporations) that feeds him campaign money?
his motivation is the constituents he represents! despite the problem of a torrent of laws, THIS is the type of regulation we need to be passing, not how pizza is a vegetable and whatever other bogus shit congress decides to make law.
I love the idea of "one person one vote" and I agree that the Corporatiions should not be treated as a person, but either should Unions, they operate the same (pooling controled money into specific campaigns) and unless individual members of a Union have the right to opt out of any specific donation or campaign then they are just as bad for political discourse.
How is this even a debate!? How can it be rationalized that a corporate financed election and campaigns is good for America?! I'm baffled at how absurd and destructive the practice is and that there is even a debate to uphold it. People need to wake the hell up!
Good! A place where I can comment on Dylan Ratigan. You are the best!
Get the money out and lawmakers that have a stake directly or indirectly and will benefit of what they are voting one should abstain from voting and should abstain from influencing the votes of others. Set a penalty for this. Suspension without pay (because other wise we would be giving them a paid vacation) and the second time, complete expulsion with negative references and prohibited from benefiting from the action by paying restitution to the American people.
Ron, for over 230 years corporations were not defined as persons and were taxed. I think though you are right about unintended consequences. It maybe that this amendment would open the door for a return of the fairness doctrine. If corporations are not persons then making them present both sides of an argument would not infringe on freedom of speech because corporations would have no freedom of speech.
Sanders proposal has the right intent but it is too narrow. We need to cut to the chase and make it global: "Only living human beings shall have the rights defined in this constitution; other legally defined entities shall not, and shall not be considered "persons" under the law." This makes it clear that NO organizations- for profit, non profit, religious, union, whatever- have "rights of personhood". If we settle for a partial ban, people will find a way around it for sure. We need to be absolutely clear about this line.
HankB has it right. Defining what "person" means and how that relates to the rights of "legal entities." The Get Money Out amendment should have been the one introduced in it's entirety. Republicans and Democrats should unite under the very principle of the Get Money Out Amendment. It should be a rally point for OWS and the Tea Party.
hankb nails it. only a living human being can have these rights.