Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:24 PM Jan 2013

Democratic Representative Introduces Two Bills To OVERTURN Citizens United Ruling [View all]





One day after the three-year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling for Citizens United, the fight to overturn it has begun. Two bills were introduced by U.S. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts: one that declares that corporations are not people, and one that says that Congress has the power to regulate the financing of political campaigns.



Both pieces of legislation are the first step in what will likely be a long and bitter fight to make an addition to the U.S. Constitution. If successful, it would mark the 28th Amendment to this country’s sacred document of governance. The last time an amendment was ratified was in 1992. It took over 200 years for it to pass the 2/3 majority of both Houses and the 3/4 majority of the states to meet the requirements. Most probably don’t remember it. It determined when changes could be made to Congress’ pay. Most would not consider that a life-altering change. However, many would agree that the current proposed Amendment does matter to them.



Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled for Citizens United, 80% said that they disagreed with the ruling. Since then, sentiment has softened some, with 62% saying they opposed the ruling. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center had similar findings. Of those who were familiar with the Supreme Court ruling, 65% felt that the Super PACs had a negative impact on campaigns. Surely, supporters realize that as time passes, their window of opportunity will get smaller.



That’s why the groups that support the Amendment are making sure people don’t forget. Groups pushing for the Amendment include Free Speech for People, Public Citizen, and People for the American Way. Move to Amend is another group that has worked hard to gather support for the change. They have regular rallies to spread the word, their website is full of information on the topic, and their petition has over 250,000 signers. Whichever version you look at, they all seem to come to the same conclusion – corporations are not people. Congressman McGovern stated it best when he proposed his version:






The fact is, corporations are not people. And the Constitution was never intended to give corporations the same rights as the American people. Corporations don’t breathe. They don’t have kids. And they don’t die in wars.
55 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Excellent! tosh Jan 2013 #1
Corporations just Tagish_Charlie Jan 2013 #12
DU is a corporation. nt onenote Jan 2013 #22
If you resent that obvious fact, I'm quite sure you are free to leave. Meanwhile, kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #51
I cannot make any sense of your post onenote Jan 2013 #52
Not a big deal. truebluegreen Jan 2013 #2
This proposed amendment strips all corporations (including LLCs) of all constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #3
I don't believe in constitutional rights for corporations. Even DU. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #9
How about the New York Times Corp? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #15
Do you think a corporation can be sued? cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #18
never heard of the Pentagon Papers case? onenote Jan 2013 #21
How about the NAACP, MoveOn, every labor union onenote Jan 2013 #23
Planned Parenthood is not a natural person, so has zero constitutional rights Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #32
Somehow I dont think thats an accurate representation quakerboy Jan 2013 #14
And it's not like if the First Amendment was overturned, people would immediately be arrested Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #16
To keep it from happening to People quakerboy Jan 2013 #17
So under your system, book publishers could be prevented from publishing books Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #31
Not even a little bit quakerboy Jan 2013 #36
So if I understand correctly, under your proposal, a publisher that is a corporation could be banned Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #37
Read it again, sam. quakerboy Jan 2013 #39
So I think that's a very long "yes" (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #40
Nope quakerboy Jan 2013 #41
Excellent. So corporations *do* have some constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #42
No. quakerboy Jan 2013 #47
Ah. So it *would* be constitutional for Congress to ban corporations from publishing books Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #50
Misdirection quakerboy Jan 2013 #54
But redheads and US citizens are not "corporations". Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #55
But are you okay when the power of the state is used to go after a corporate entity for its speech? onenote Jan 2013 #43
This argument appears to be over. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #45
That's a false argument quakerboy Jan 2013 #48
Explain how "direct ownership" of the NAACP would work? How do you make it a "natural person" onenote Jan 2013 #49
Thats exactly my point quakerboy Jan 2013 #53
I love it. And the language is very plain. Could get a lot of traction. freshwest Jan 2013 #4
I just love my Congressman McGovern! sheshe2 Jan 2013 #8
Very, very timely. Although with the revelations of the NRA types supplying arms abroad... freshwest Jan 2013 #10
I doubt it will get any traction onenote Jan 2013 #33
K&R Historic NY Jan 2013 #5
From Ma. here...Kick and F***ing Rec! sheshe2 Jan 2013 #6
This would have to pass both the House and Senate correct? davidpdx Jan 2013 #7
The filibuster will stop any path to sanity. It must be changed. The Wielding Truth Jan 2013 #11
I agree davidpdx Jan 2013 #25
This may be the king pin to saving our country from total corruption. The Wielding Truth Jan 2013 #34
It's a Constitutional Amendment. It needs a 2/3rds majority in the Senate and House, Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #13
That's what I thought davidpdx Jan 2013 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #19
Thank you, Jim McGovern! Cha Jan 2013 #20
This issue is so important Berlum Jan 2013 #26
Wonderful Idea... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #27
SCOTUS rarely completely overturns their rulings davidn3600 Jan 2013 #29
True... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #30
Oh, you mean the Ralph Nader's contribution to America. HE DID THIS graham4anything Jan 2013 #28
The campaign finance amendment repeals 1st amendment protection of political speech eallen Jan 2013 #35
YES. And the irony is that people like David Koch would still have unlimited free speech, Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #38
Harry will only let it come to a vote if it will FAIL Lesmoderesstupides Jan 2013 #44
Its never ever coming to the Senate for a vote. And it should fail onenote Jan 2013 #46
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democratic Representative...