Let's remove an abused legal fiction from the Constitution

Here is a proposal by Move to Amend:

Amendment

Section 1 [Corporations are not people and can be regulated]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Here is the link: http://movetoamend.org/amendment

Thanks, William, for pointing out that as usual I am a day late and a dollar short! :)

I had not heard of that proposal before, I was just basing mine on what I considered to be a logical approach. I can agree with most of what you posted, but have reservations about section 2.

I'd add a section that only registered voters can make campaign contributions, and then only to candidates that they can vote for.

I actually have thought about that, Twitchy. I'd like to restrict it to eligible voters for a given race. I would be very happy just to see contributions limited to eligible voters in the same state as a race to prevent out-of-state influence, but I suspect that would have trouble passing Constitutional muster.

Not if it's part of an amendment. 7;-]

True, but I would like to an amendment that introduces as few as possible internal contradictions. That is why I think the starting point is to explicitly state that the Constitution is for natural persons, not legal constructs. I am still thinking through the issue of money as speech.

Even what I am proposing could have side effects on commercial speech.

In any event, I think the Get Money Out proposal is a very bad attempt at solving a problem that needs to be solved. Yes, it would get corporate money out, but it also tramples over the First Amendment for natural persons, and that simply is wrong, in my opinion.

In this case, I think we're dealing more with money as votes than money as speech. In any event, it doesn't limit freedom of speech. Anyone could still say whatever they want. They just couldn't contribute monetarily to a political campaign unless they're a registered voter who can vote in that particular election.

Twitchy, change "registered voter" to "eligible voter" and I can agree with your statement. There is a very real distinction between the two in my mind.

There is, but I think that "registered voter" is exactly what we want. If they aren't going to bother to vote, should they be allowed to make political campaign contributions?

I'm late to the party and full UNBRIEFED, but logic dictates that we ask, " so when did institutions become human entities in terms of the Constitution?" In the normal legal area, the world is dvided into "natural person" and " entity", as is logical.

So when did politics do the Orwellian twist on that?

I'm not a member of the Whigs, but I do have a comment. I would be worried that just like every other law, rule, restriction on how money gets to parties and representatives, this one would fail because work arounds would be found.

For example, what would keep a group, corporation, union, entity from designating one individual (a natural person) in their group from being the conduit that is used to deliver the money? If the contribution amount was 'limited', you could just designate two, one hundred or even more individuals (natural persons) to contribute the money.

I am afraid it is just a fact that you cannot separate money from the political process.... because both people that 'want' something from government and those in government who 'benefit' from the money WANT THE MONEY IN THERE.

It's sad but I think it is true.

WTPLV

That's always going to be a problem, no matter what system you use. About all you can do is adjust as you gain experience.

Not much different from computer security. You close one vulnerability, they discover another.

WP and TW , your point is valid. What Jim says here, "but I would like to an amendment that introduces as few as possible internal contradictions." is what I like to term BONZAI regulation. BONZAI meaning the least amount to do the most. This would require the wording to reflect Jim's thought, and I think it is possible to word such a reg to have the desired effect.

I first coined the term "bonzai" reg to tackle the problem of most regulation being so costly to implement as to put its efficacy into question on the face of it. I beleive this characteristic typifies 90%+ of what passes as law.

And it is something we cannot afford any longer. Further, not being "bonzai!" about it requires a continued rollout of the federal juggernaut. So bonzai is about both efficacy/cost and controlling undue Federal influence.

Dear sir,

I am new here so forgive me for both my directness and my pseudonym. I am a vet and a former Republican who has been an independent since the GOP went off the deep end following 9/11. I am looking for a party that might actually come close to my personal views and the MWP seems close. I have two questions relevant to this discussion and the MWP:

1. Does the MWP have an official position on corporate personhood?

2. Have you seen the Constitutional Amendment proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders on this issue? http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.J.Res..pdf

I hope to get to know you and this party a bit more as we begin the 2012 election cycle...I may even be tempted to run for office again myself (I was an elected city commissioner in New Mexico back in the Gary Johnson days), but would prefer to help others win elections rather than become a face man again. ;)

Your’s &c.
the Federal Farmer

Ref #2 - Does Section 1 include unions and other 'non-profit' corporate entities? I think that it should be more explicit, that Constitutional rights, in general, are limited to natural persons, except for obvious exceptions such as freedom of the press.

This purposal is in my opinion a bad idea.
That's the problem with politics today. Too many people want a one-size fits-all federal intervention.
This should be left up to the States. If a corporation wants to operate in multiple states, it needs to abide by each state. Competetion is best in capitalism; this includes states competing with each other.
The Constitution is fine how it is, we just need to abide by it.
Corporations are not the problem. Chrony-capitalism, Keynesian economics, the Federal Reserve, and worthless paper money are.
Corporations do not have rights, they have subsidies and entitlements granted to them by big government. However, corporations are made up of people. If an individual breaks a law they should be held accountable.
The solutions to our problems reside in the people, and with states. Not in Washington D.C.

The influence of money will always dominate politics, even in socialism or communism. The solution is to not give government the power of control. Returning control to the states would also minimize the gross polarization in American politics, as it is natural that the 'melting pot' will never agree on issues that are placed where they don't belong.

A true free-market system based on Austrian Economics is what we need, not more regulation which strangles entrepreneurism and job grow. Individuals should be held accountable by individuals. Ever dollar you spend is a vote of your approval. The richer you are, the more influence you have. If you by cheap crap from Wal-Mart, you are saying it's ok to ship jobs overseas. Your actions should abide by your talk. America was founded on personal responsibility... not cheap talk and government regulation.

Sounds like a good idea, but will this necessarily end the practice of politicians being in the pocket of business leaders? Even if corporations can't provide campaign funds, these business leaders have the power to get around the law and exert influence in other ways.

I'm just curious, who do you suppose ExxonMobil votes for, how about Moveon.org? :-)

It brings me to a suggestion I have for campaign finance reform, and that is that all corporations and other organizations would be banned from contributing to political campaigns. At the same time, individuals would be allowed to contribute as much as they want, but only their own money, not pooled money.

It is based on the idea that only individuals (natural born persons) are able to vote, so only indiviuals could contribute to a campaign.

Fred, sounds much like my idea, except I'd limit contributions to campaigns that you are registered to vote in.

A big first step is to get the SCOTUS "decision" that has been used to make corporations people reviewed and clarified.
The case it is based on an 1886 case aghe court never made a decsion. The court clerk( who worked previously for the railroads) wrote his own summary into the court summary on the headnote.
There is not original case law based on a court decision to back the Citizens United decision.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is just the latest in bad Supreme Court rulings going back hundreds of years. We absolutely do need a Constitutional Amendment that reverts our understanding of Corporations to the English Common Law which was that of “Artificial Persons.” It also needs to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United and then reinstitute the protections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain–Feingold Act).

I would love the MWP to overtly support this, but that might be a bad idea if the MWP is ever going to try to become a funded organization lol

How many eligible but not registered voters donate to a campaign? It seems to me like that an eligible voter who gives to a candidate is likely to vote for that candidate.

Rockingham, not sure I get the point of your question.