News > Breaking News, Featured, Homepage Feature, In the News, News ...

Lawmakers Unite with Activist Groups to Press for Constitutional Amendment on Citizens United

Introduce 'Declaration for Democracy' declaring corporations aren't people

"The Declaration for Democracy" presented at the congressional summit signed by lawmakers and activists. Photo courtesy of People for the American Way

On Wednesday, a group of members of Congress, local and state lawmakers, and activist groups met in a Capitol Visitor Center hearing room to do something unusual for its loftiness: they announced and signed a “declaration for democracy,” pledging their support to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited spending by corporations and unions on elections.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), himself the author of such an amendment, was one of the first lawmakers to speak:

The U.S. Constitution has served us very well, but when the Supreme Court says, for purposes of the First Amendment, that corporations are people, that writing checks from the company’s bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by constitutional amendment.

Sanders was joined by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Udall (D-NM), as well as Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Keith Ellison (Minn.), Rush Holt (N.J.), John Sarbanes (Md.), Betty Sutton (Ohio), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Ted Deutch (Fla.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Peter Welch (Vt.), and David Cicilline (R.I.). Many have introduced constitutional amendments of their own; all signed on to the declaration and expressed their support for the movement.

Each member echoed Sanders, especially focusing on the momentum building across the country for such an amendment. Hawaii, New Mexico, and this week, Vermont, have all passed resolutions in their state legislatures calling on Congress to overturn Citizens United. They’re joined by over 147 cities nationwide that have passed resolutions. The summit highlighted the Resolutions Week initiative spearheaded by Public Citizen and other organizations, aimed at passing local resolutions the week of June 11.

“We have developing here a grassroots movement,” Udall said.

The speakers had nothing but vitriol for Citizens United, which Schumer derided as the “worst [Supreme Court] decision since Plessy v. Ferguson,” which was the 1896 ruling that supported “separate but equal” racial segregation.

The members noted that passing this 28th amendment requires commitment from citizens and activist groups:

“With this vehicle, we are going to organize America and all Americans are central to that success,” said Ellison. “We need people to take personal responsibility…this has to be a mass action.”

The members of Congress were followed by speakers representing activist groups including Public Citizen, Free Speech for People, People for the American Way, and the Center for Media and Democracy, as well as activists and local legislators from Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, and Vermont.

 


Suzanne Merkelson is the Associate Web Editor for United Republic, where she curates and comments on the day’s top money-in-politics news. She previously produced web content for Foreign Policy magazine and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic, among others.

Get Involved

Comments

  • t. ulrich

    If corporations are people than why are they not taxed like people?

  • Irenef200

    We have a supreme court with no common sense.  To say Judge Judy could do better would be an insult to judge Judy.

  • starrider

    Bernie Sanders, chairman of the socialist caucus? Anything that he, Schumer and the rest of the bunch wants change in the Constitution is not in the interests of our Republic. The Constitution is the only thing standing between us and communisim.

    • Graybanford

      Another person who doesn’t understand the meaning of communism or socialism. Go read a book why don’t you….

  • JeffP

    “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one!”

  • Alex

    Congressman Sarbanes also signed the Declaration and is doing a lot to combat Citizen’s United. Check it out and support the cause: https://www.grassrootsdonor.com

  • Alex

    If that link doesn’t work try this one http://www.grassrootsdonor.com

  • Remarklj

    Corporations aren’t people, but people act through corporations.  Why the corporate form disqualifies someone from speaking is not clear. 

    The last time I looked, Fox News and MSNBC were corporations (or parts of corporations).  How are news media protected when they editorialize, but an organization formed to editorialize is not?  

    The fact is that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about the Citizens United case.  If CU were an unincorporated club and not a corporation, would anyone doubt the members’ right to pool their resources to take out an ad?  Or produce a movie?  Or fund the Daily KOS or the Aryan Blowhard or whatever?

    Ross Perot ran for President and spent as much money as he wanted.  Why shouldn’t I be able to run using my best friend’s money?  

    The only cure for money in politics is an educated populace that knows BS when it hears it.  Absent that, we are not fit to govern ourselves anyway.

    • Donna

      “Corporations aren’t people, but people act through corporations.  Why
      the corporate form disqualifies someone from speaking is not clear. ”

      No one is “disqualified” from speaking AS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN.  Everyone who works for or owns/runs a corporation can speak as a citizen.  That is all that is protected under our constitution.  What they cannot do, is take another bite at the apple and “speak” ALSO, although anonymously, as a ‘corporation’. This is really not speaking, it is a back-door way of voting by proxy, which everyone (even SCOTUS) acknowledges corporations have no right to do.  Gee, why not, if they are really “people”??  Pondering just how a corporation could enter the voting booth as the rest of us must to do cast its vote, exposes the fallacy rather well!
       
      Not only are corporations not people, and therefore not citizens, but they are legal fictions, created so that the corporate entity can enter into contracts.  Corporations  are immortal.  As such, they can and do outlive all of the rest of us humans with mortal lifespans, yet they continue to amass huge and unlimited amounts of money and wealth, which can then be used against living, breathing citizens of our supposedly democratic republic, to subvert our needs and wishes and, indeed, the very apparatus of our government.  As Thomas Jefferson so wisely and eloquently wrote about and warned about, these man-made entities must be strictly limited to serve the public good (via state-granted, limited charters) and can never be granted the rights of citizens which are living, breathing, mortal human beings.  It is human beings, alone, for whom rights are self-evident: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Corporations exist solely to serve society and continue to exist only ‘at the pleasure of’ its citizens.
       
      And you are quite right, people can and do act through corporations.  As long as they are acting according to our laws and constitution and performing the specific purposes for which the corporation is chartered by law and incorporated, there is no problem.  However, when individuals act anonymously through corporations for their own self interest and using the funds of the corporation that do not belong to them, but to the shareholders, employees, etc., this poses huge problems.  It not only gives one individual or a small group of individuals far too much power, but it allows them an undue amount of power and influence, far beyond that of a single individual citizen.  This violates the one person, one vote principle and allows small cliques of wealthy, powerful individuals to literally buy our government out from under us and have far more  “free speech” then the rest of us.  This is undemocratic and in violation of the spirit of our constitution as well as the letter of it.  And it is the perverse and  abominable situation in which we currently find ourselves, because of the rampant corruption of all three branches of our government.

      It is ludicrous and absurd to assert, as the corrupt majority of the Supreme Court did, that ‘Money equals Speech’.  Of course, it does not!  Money is money and speech is speech!  If such an absurdity could be true, it would mean, then, that rich people have more of a right to free speech than poor or middle income people.  When stated this way, the ridiculous fallacy inherent in this self-serving concept is exposed for all to see.
      For background on this very important issue with dire consequences for the continuation of our freedom and civil liberties, as well as the constitutional form of government that has served us fairly well for 236 years, I suggest you read what Thomas Jefferson has written on this subject.  I also recommend two other great books on the long history of this ongoing process of subversion of our courts and our laws by corporations, or more precisely, corporate agents: 
      “Gangs of America”, by Ted Nace
      “Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights”, Thomm Hartmann
      -Donna

      • Remarklj

        ” Everyone who works for or owns/runs a corporation can speak as a citizen.  That is all that is protected under our constitution.  What they cannot do, is take another bite at the apple and “speak” ALSO, although anonymously, as a ‘corporation’. ”

        Why not?  Speaking twice is consitutionally protected.  Anonymous speech is constitutionally protected.  Two people pooling their resources to take out an ad, anonymously, is constitutionally protected.  And yet you want what you admit is a fiction - the corporate form – to be a bar to constitutional protection?  You might as well say that anyone wearing a funny hat is barred from speaking.  The corportate form has no more significance.

        “However, when individuals act anonymously through corporations for their own self interest and using the funds of the corporation that do not belong to them, but to the shareholders, employees, etc., this poses huge problems.”

        Do you believe that describes Citizens United, a corporation FORMED to produce political screeds with the full authority of those who fund it?  I have no trouble with a claim that management violates its fiduciary duty when it acts contrary to the interests of its owners, but that is a matter of fact in any case, and certainly not something that would affect the SuperPACs that Citizens United is about.  The Citizens United Case is not about General Motors; it is about a corporation formed specifically to do what it did.

        “It is ludicrous and absurd to assert, as the corrupt majority of the Supreme Court did, that ‘Money equals Speech’.”

        Whether money “equals” speech is beside the point.  Money is ESSENTIAL to speech.  If you have money, you can buy access to media.  If you don’t you can’t.   What do you suppose the NYT spends when it buys ink to print an editorial?  Quatloos?  Telling an editorialist that he can speak but only if he spends no money is like telling Shylock that he can remove a pound of flesh but not an ounce of blood.  Clever, and certainly sufficient to thwart a Mediaevel Jew, but not really all that persusasive at the end of the day.

        ” If such an absurdity could be true, it would mean, then, that rich people have more of a right to free speech than poor or middle income people.  ”

        Not more of a right, but more of an opportunity.  That’s what being rich is about: having more things, including more opportunities, including access to political power.  Sounds unfair, maybe even is unfair, but try playing the tape backward: If wealth does not entail political influence, it is very likely to be confiscated (as Mr. Abramovich), and soon no one wothout an army to hold it seeks it.  Our system protects wealth because, otherwise, it ISN’T wealth, and so it isn’t an incentive, and so our capitalist system collapses.

         

  • Uncle Fester Lurks

    starrider said: The Constitution is the only thing standing between us and Communisim.

    Wow! That’s hilarious if not ignorant. Look around you pal. Who owns our government? Who helps write and push many of our laws? Corporations and Wall Street. This is not Communism this is corporate fascism or if that is too harsh how about a corporate oligarchy.

    I’ve noticed that even many leading evangelists spew this Communism crap and all of the little sheep believe it. Some of you better look up what Communism is and what Fascism is. I suspect if you have even half a brain you would agree that we are moving closer to Fascism.

    By the way….isn’t it just a bit evil that man has given an artificial man made entity (the corporations) more human rights then REAL humans have?

    • Wiley

       Ain’t you an Atriot, Uncle Fester?  Anyway, I like your style!

  • http://www.facebook.com/joani.niemeyer Joani Parker Niemeyer

    @ Suzanne Merkelson, You forgot to mention the two activists from Pennsylvania. 

  • Wiley

    starrider, why are you so utterly clueless?

  • Tom Bell

     There is some hope when I see Declaration for Democracy and the folks who signed on. That kind of movement is what I fought for, and lost my right eye for, in WWII.  I am with you. 
               Tom Bell

  • Mjlucas44

    What has our country coming to , when elections can be bought!!!!!
    Please stop Citizens United. The Supreme Court was WRONG in it’s decision.
    Citizens United MUST be STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take Action

Donate

Republic Forum

Follow us

Join the Republic
continue to United Republic »