HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Opponents of “Corporate P...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:56 AM

Opponents of “Corporate Personhood” Eye US Constitution by Matthew Cardinale

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/29


A rally by Move to Amend Ohio, the state chapter of the national coalition seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish corporate constitutional rights. (Credit: Progress Ohio/cc by 2.0)

ATLANTA, Georgia - There is a growing national movement to establish a 28th amendment to the constitution of the United States to address the issue of unlimited corporate spending in elections, although the groups working on the issue diverge on what exactly the amendment should say.

One national coalition called Move to Amend (MTA) is led by David Cobb. A Green Party candidate for president in 2006, Cobb has been touring the country calling for a constitutional amendment to “clearly establish that money is not speech, a corporation is not a person, all corporations are subject to regulation, all campaign contributions will be disclosed, and (that) allows for no loopholes,” according to the MTA website.

But passing a constitutional amendment is a daunting task, requiring the support of two-thirds of the U.S. House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

Cobb believes that it will take about 10 years to build a grassroots movement to successfully lobby for the enactment of the amendment, but that it can be accomplished eventually.

8 replies, 755 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Opponents of “Corporate Personhood” Eye US Constitution by Matthew Cardinale (Original post)
xchrom Jan 2013 OP
graham4anything Jan 2013 #1
el_bryanto Jan 2013 #2
roody Jan 2013 #3
marmar Jan 2013 #4
xchrom Jan 2013 #5
Jim Lane Jan 2013 #6
xchrom Jan 2013 #7
Jim Lane Jan 2013 #8

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:07 AM

1. I can't pass up without mentioning the dripping irony in this

 

a green party candidate (aka a Naderite) against corporate personhood

when IMHO of course, it was a green party candidate who DIRECTLY gave us corporate personhood.

without that green party candidate (Ralph Nader of course), the judges on the US Supreme Court would not have voted for it nor the 2 George Bush picked would not have been picked
yup, the court proved Bush and Gore were not one and the same


Oh the thick, thick as molasses dripping irony this David Cobb is.

which came first the chicken or the egg? Ralph Nader did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:11 AM

2. Well when I get my time machine up and running i'm going back to 2000 to punch Nader in the face

The man who destroyed everything forever. I mean it's just helpless and hopless to assume that in 2013 we could do anything about campaign finance reform - we had our chance as a nation, and thanks to Nader, America is doomed! Forever!

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:16 AM

3. The Green Party paid for

the Ohio recount. Where was the Kerry campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:36 AM

4. K&R.......


Hopefully the importance of this post and this issue isn't sidetracked by the foolishness upthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:45 AM

5. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:14 PM

6. It's very ironic to tout this movement on DU

The OP has a photo of a protest sign: "FREE SPEECH IS FOR PEOPLE NOT FOR CORPORATIONS."

The photo is posted on a website owned by a corporation.

Abolish corporate personhood, and what exactly stops President DeMint (or whoever) from shutting down DU and confiscating all the assets of Democratic Underground LLC? Even if you're 100% confident that there will never again be a Republican President (an assumption that I don't share), consider that some RWNJ state governor might take similar action against a website or newspaper or magazine based in his or her state.

The better response to Citizens United would be to establish (by changing the Supreme Court's membership or by Constitutional amendment) that spending money on politics can be speech but is also conduct, and can therefore be regulated, just as burning one's draft card can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:20 PM

7. Somebody doesn't understand 'irony' nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:57 PM

8. Might I trouble you for an answer to my question?

If the Constitution were to be amended to exclude corporations from the right of freedom of speech and from all the protections afforded to persons, what would stop a right-wing President from using that change to close down DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread