Measure to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Steam in Wisconsin

[Doombard]

http://www.pculpa.com/component/cont...wisconsin.html

“RESOLVED, the City of Madison, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:
1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and
2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”

84% of voters in Madison, Wisconsin have approved the above measure that would strip corporations of any claim to the protection of rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Voters elsewhere in Wisconsin have also approved the measure in their particular counties. The proposal comes in the wake of Wisconsin Republicans successful efforts to strip from state unions the right to collectively bargain. The battle over that bill galvanized many in America, and has spurred progressives and others on the left to reassert workers’ rights.

The amendment, proposed by Move to Amend, is meant to strike at the heart of Citizens United, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that ruled that corporations were entitled to the same constitutional protection as citizens. That decision also paved the way for corporations to donate any amount they wish to political campaigns.

Many Americans, including Republicans, are decidedly against giving corporations the same rights as individuals, and are also very much against allowing corporations to fund campaigns. According to a Survey USA poll, 70% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats are for rejecting the underlying tenets of Citizens United.

Whether or not progressives, and any conservative allies they pick up a long the way, will be able to actually amend the Constitution to strip corporations of certain rights, only time will tell. But it seems, based on polling and the fervency of the proposal’s supporters, that the initiative might very well be able to accomplish what many across the political spectrum have hoped to see for decades. At the very least, the measure will raise awareness of an issue many have long sought to address.

tldr; People in Wisconsin trying to add an Amendment to the Constitution to say that corporations are NOT citizens and are not covered by the rights in it. Also limiting what these corporations can spend on political parties.

Bout damn time.

[kuronosan]

Fucking finally. We need to kick these people in the fucking face and tell them that Corporations aren't any more a person than a fucking bag of cells.

[dejet]

they need to be very careful of what they define as not a citizen. Its one thing that protects the individual from being a target(your 401k comes to mind) you own shares of a corporation, its the fact that its a "citizen" that keeps them from going after you.

Im happy to see a move, I am just scared how it will end if they are not careful.

[Correction]

Publicity stunt, although one with its heart in the right place. The City of Madison Wisconsin can't redefine protected speech for any group without overturning Supreme Court precedent.

[Ashmada]

Limits to lobbying would be fucking nice, but as Dejet said, high potential to backfire.

[Gwynplaine]

Fucking finally. We need to kick these people in the fucking face and tell them that Corporations aren't any more a person than a fucking bag of cells.

So a group of individuals can exercise its rights if it's a union, but a group of individuals can't exercise its rights if it's a business?

[Rhinox]

Don't really need to overturn precedent just need a constitutional amendment to supersede the SCOTUS but that will never happen.

[Rhinox]

So a group of individuals can exercise its rights if it's a union, but a group of individuals can't exercise its rights if it's a business?

Union comprised of American workers =/= multinational corporations

[Gwynplaine]

So what is the important difference? At what point does a group of individuals lose their rights in between being a union or being a business?

[Rhinox]

Because Foreign Nationals would have the same constitutional rights as you or me?

[Cantih]

From the top down as compared to from the bottom up?

When a business exerts political force, it comes from powerful executives with a personal agenda.
When a union exerts political force, it's from a consensus of it's members working together.
(Unless of course the union leaders have hijacked influence and resources, which I am not cool with.)

Do you think for example, the political opinions of say, McDonalds as a business, come from the employees you see at the counters across the nation, or a handful of suits at the corporate HQ?

[Senoska]

So what is the important difference? At what point does a group of individuals lose their rights in between being a union or being a business?

At what point does a business stop being a group of people and turn into a single person?

[kuronosan]

So a group of individuals can exercise its rights if it's a union, but a group of individuals can't exercise its rights if it's a business?

A union is a group of people who deserve rights and fight for worker's rights. A corporation is a board of assholes who, as individuals, have their own rights. They now consider an entire corporation to be a single individual. Think about that one.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You guys are looking at this wrong.

The SCOTUS didn't say "corp's have the same constitutional rights we do." What they said was, "the freedom of the press applies to anyone who wishes to use that technology."

[Kurokikaze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n33AJfR52M8

Bernieeeeeeeeeeeeee. Wasn't sure where to put this.

Need to do something about all the money/lobbyist that are corrupting Washington. Nothing but a pipe dream though. ;/

[Anton]

In SyrupMooseLand,

Our Elections Act outlines and regulates some strict restrictions on how much of your campaign war chest can come from business and interest groups. The bulk of the funding comes from the public through donations.

So on the plus side, parties have to appeal to the people for an effective campaign, and nobody cares about interest groups. On the downside, parties are way more annoying, because they appeal to the people right as you're about to eat dinner.

Pros and cons.