A constitutional amendment is proposed

[Kelvin Mace]

Artificial persons, such as, but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, professional associations, foundations, non-profit corporations, DBAs, cooperatives, and sole proprietorships, shall exist at the sufferance of the people, shall enjoy only those rights not expressly denied them by the people, and shall not enjoy, legal privileges, exemptions, or rights superior to the people in any circumstance.

What do you think?

The point of this law is to revoke corporate personhood, and subject corporations to restrictions they now escape due to "constitutional rights". With this amendment, it is possible to legally ban corporations from making political contributions or engaging in political advocacy since they no longer have "First Amendment" rights.

Update: I made two changes (in bold). If I used "expressly granted" instead of denied, we would have to go back and pass thousands of laws granting corporations specific right they need to operate. By "expressly denied", we can trim away any law that corps use to screw the public. Also, by setting limits on "privileges" and "exemptions" we wipe out a lot of tax loopholes written specifically for corporations that are not afforded to people.

[ColbertWatcher]

1. I think it's beautiful! n/t

[Jim__]

2. Any amendment to the Constitution must be passed by our corporate owned politicians

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid, to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

I think your amendment is great. I'm not holding my breath 'til our politicians stand up and defy their corporate masters.

[Kelvin Mace]

3. Agreed,

but you've got to start somewhere...

Besides, I am looking for something simple, yet powerful. And yes, it will scare the shit out of corporate America who would fight it fang and claw..

[texanshatingbush]

4. I LIKE IT!!!!!!

Would political action committees be included?

Something such as this proposed amendment is the first step to reclaiming our democracy. As it is now, the corporations and political action committees (e.g., Delay's PAC which he used to influence votes in the House)wield far more weight in the legislative and election processes than "we the people".....so it's become not really a government of "we the people" and thus not a government representing the consent of the governed.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Probably not

but corporations could be prohibited from donating to them, or creating them.

Realize though, that the Right would try to use this against DU (which is a corporation). This is a powerful weapon for reining in corporate abuse, but we must examine all the consequences, and choose the wording carefully.

The amendment is powerful, but the implementation would be via the regular law-making process.

[mmonk]

5. Sounds good. As a delegate of the North Carolina Democratic

Party, we have a resolution at looking at doing away with corporate personhood.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. Cool!

Where are you located. I am in High Point.

[mmonk]

17. Raleigh

[Sherman A1]

14. Superb!!!

Push hard on this one and keep us updated on your progress. My belief is that since corporations are creations of the state and the state is the creation of the people, then corps should be beholden to the people at all times.

Doesn't work that way, but I believe it should.

[mmonk]

18. Yes. We emphasize that corporate personage has corrupted democracy.

[mmonk]

19. Here are two of the resolutions on financial corruption:

Resolution on the Financial Corruption of Democracy
WHEREAS, candidates for public office in the United States
must raise extraordinary amounts of money in order to
campaign effectively; and
WHEREAS, the raising of money corrupts democracy; and
WHEREAS, the major need for the money arises from the
government’s granting use of public broadcast airways to
corporations for private profit, so that the corporations then
sell time to political candidates; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that Democratic members of Congress seek
legislation to require commercial broadcast corporations to
allow candidates for public office the use of public airways
free of charge, either through the issuance of “advertising
credits” calculated by a formula based on corporation profits
from the broadcast frequency, or by such other mechanism as
established by Congress that eliminates the need to raise
money for candidates to present themselves and their views to
the electorate over the public airways; and be it further
RESOLVED, that Democrats support reinstitution of the
Fairness Doctrine to reduce control of information by private
media owners; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the North Carolina Democratic Party
supports public financing of elections and calls upon the
General Assembly to enact legislation to expand public
financing of elections.



Resolution on Corporate Personhood
BE IT RESOLVED, that the North Carolina Democratic Party
calls for a reexamination of corporate law and the relative
rights given to corporations and individuals.

[Sherman A1]

27. I totally agree, but

don't think it should stop at just the public air ways. Any corporation that receives a benefit from some tax incentive should also be required to provide compensation of some sort. My example would be a shopping center that receives a benefit through TIF's should be available for a campaign rally, debate, town hall meeting if the candidates (and that would be any candidate for local, state or federal office that could reasonably judged to have a constituency in that area) chose to do so. Corporations should serve the public good, since it is at least indirectly the public which allows for their existence.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. Let it BEGIN!!!!

[RB TexLa]

7. So a corporation, partnership, etc, could not file suit or be sued?

So when someone wants to sue for actions of JPMorganChase and Co. they would have to sue all stockholders individually?

[Kelvin Mace]

10. No, they could still be sued

as an entity. I am not saying that artificial persons shall not exist, only that they exist at the sufferance of the people, meaning the people get to make the rules that govern a corporation's existence. So, the people may outlaw political contributions by corporations without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Also, being sued is not a right, so it would not affect being sued.

[onenote]

23. "the people may outlaw political contributions by corporations"

The people already have outlawed certain types of political spending by corporations and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

What the proposed amendment would allow however is for the people, by a simple majority vote, to strip newspapers, magazines, book publishers, and other forms of media of their First Amendment protections. Not only could the public outlaw political contributions by these entities, it could bar them from publishing particular types of speech based on its content.

No thanks.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Yup!

People think ALL our problems can be solved with one solution that fits ona bumpersticker. That's just simple-minded.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. First, I don't think the amendment

quite fits on a bumper sticker.

Second, the point is discussion, not having one's proposal dismissed as "simple-minded".

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Uh, no.

The media is specifically exempt, since they are addressed in the First Amendment.

[bryant69]

11. I'm not sure about the exist at the sufferance of the people bit

and I would rewrite the last clause as "shall not enjoy legal rights or protections superior to or equal to the people in any circumstance.

But I really like it - certainly we need to revoke Corporate Personhood or trim it way back.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Kelvin Mace]

12. I made two revisions

and addressed your suggestion.

[LiberalEsto]

13. Excellent!!!

I love it!

[nykym]

15. Fantastic

I love it, lets get it rolling.

[Dogmudgeon]

16. The big corporations will love it

It will decimate the smaller corporations, giving the big dogs enormous amounts of easy, low-cost capital.

It will get them off many a hook.

It will destroy the ability of the Left to use the word "Corporation" as a swear word.

They will get more than they will lose.

On the other hand, if we ALSO start using corporate charters as the legal instruments they are, to COMPEL beneficial corporate behavior, then we'll be getting somewhere.

The terms of all corporate charters, under common law and most settled law, are to permit private organizations the ability to profit from doing publicly necessary work -- the condition being that the public share fully in the risks AND PROFITS.

Corporations can, and ought to be, our slaves, replacing human slavery with profit-driven popular control of capital.

A leftist business lawyer could explain all this a lot better than I could, and describe a number of the micro-arguments that can be made within the topic. Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Rapp">Tom Rapp in the house?

--p!

[Kelvin Mace]

35. How do "big" corporations

manage to avoid complying with the law while small corporations won't?

[Dogmudgeon]

43. It's not the law -- it's economics

Anything that squeezes the corporations will stress the big ones but kill the little ones. This is desirable from the point of view of big corporations, which don't mind the stress.

When the little corporations are out of business, all that capital and market share will go to the big ones that remain. It also gives the big corporations the excuse to "rightsize".

The answer is to write law that includes legal responsibilities and requirements -- public profitability and accountability.

--p!

[CrispyQ]

20. Have you checked out Reclaim Democracy's corporate personhood pages?

They have a constitutional amendment, too.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

snip...

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections
SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

===
Great minds, ya know. ;)

They have some good articles on their main personhood page, too. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

Our elected officials are bought & paid for & no longer represent We the People. How are we going to get this type of legislation passed? We are going to have to start locally, like Humboldt County did. Even then, it's going to be an uphill battle. Your thread will possibly make the greatest page, but it won't get the kind of response some frickin' Tim Russert or cookiegate thread will. We can't even get the DU community to focus on the serious issues - how are we going to wake up our neighbors - many who are working overtime & multiple jobs just to pay their bills?

Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County

http://www.duhc.org/about_mission.html

snip...

Our world is in terrible crisis. Solutions to the problems we face are not being implemented because “We the People” do not have control over our own government.

Multinational corporations have become the governing institutions – determining for us how our food is grown and distributed, how we heat and light our homes, what poisons we breathe, drink and eat. Giant corporations largely decide what controversies get attention, how wealth is shared and distributed, what solutions are acceptable, who gets elected to public office and how the United States treats other nations.

Citizens have lost our authority over the fundamental decisions that affect our lives. We are defined as “consumers,” left to choose between paper or plastic at the grocery store.

We think it is time for this to change.

Mission Statement
Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County (DUHC) educates citizens about the illegitimate seizure of our authority to govern ourselves. We design and implement grassroots strategies that exercise democratic power over corporations and governments. We seek to create a truly democratic society by provoking a non-violent popular uprising against corporate rule in Humboldt County that can serve as a model for other communities across the United States.

===
I'm not very optimistic regarding change for our country. Boosh gets every dime he asks for for his illegal war, siphoning off our treasury to the MIC, as the midwest drowns. ~sigh

I guess all we can do is keep fighting the good fight. Thanks for the thread. Bookmarking to check later for more responses.

K&R

[MonkeyFunk]

26. So Greenpeace or Planned Parenthood couldn't lobby?

[Kelvin Mace]

36. They can lobby until the cows come home

they just can't donate money if that is how the law is set up.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. then how does this fit in?

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.



That means they can't loby. It means they can't endorse anyone.


Sorry, but "End corporate personhood" is a slogan with no real meaning, and the consequences would be awful.

[formercia]

21. If corporations enjoy the status as a 'person'

does that mean they can be subject to the death penalty if convicted of murder?

[Kelvin Mace]

37. Tecnically, you can revoke their charter

but it has never been done.

[formercia]

49. There has to be some penalty for their sociopathic behavior.

Can't have it both ways.

[onenote]

22. so a newspaper would have no first amendment rights if it was established as a corporate entity

or partnership?

Does it bother you that under your amendment, the a majority vote of could have stripped the New York Times of its right to bring the Pentagon Papers suit? That a simple majority could strip Playboy and Hustler and other adult magazines and bookstores of their First Amendment protection against laws barring the sale of indecent material?

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Again, as the First Amerndment

EXPLICITLY grants freedom of the press, this wouldn't apply. I guess I will have to alter the text accordingly.

[onenote]

45. how does your text not apply to legislation denying corporations freedom of speech?

"Artificial persons, such as, but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, professional associations, foundations, non-profit corporations, DBAs, cooperatives, and sole proprietorships, shall exist at the sufferance of the people, shall enjoy only those rights not expressly denied them by the people, and shall not enjoy, legal privileges, exemptions, or rights superior to the people in any circumstance."

On its face, it provides that corporations, partnerships, etc. enjoy "only those rights not expressly not denied to them by the people, and shall not enjoy legal privileges, exemptions, or rights superior to the people in any circumstance."

Under that language the people, acting through the legislature could deny any newspaper, bookstore, magazine, radio station, tv station, cable network, or indeed any other organization that is organized as a corporation, partnership, etc. from having any freedom of speech -- they could be banned from publishing, forced off the air for reporting or not reporting certain information that the people deem offensive to their sensibilities and in doing so would place them in the position of having legal rights, privileges etc. inferior to those of individuals.

How does the amendment not do those things?

[MonkeyFunk]

24. And people could then also remove their right to due process?

What other rights would you remove?

As it stands now, corporations can't give money to political campaigns.

"end corporate personhood" is a bumper-sticker solution to a complex problem.

[Kelvin Mace]

39. Corporations CAN donate money

their are just limits on how much. SCOTUS has ruled that money = speech. That's the problem.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. corporations may not donate to a candidate

and the court's ruling that money equals speech has little to do with corporations.

A billionaire could spend his own money any way he wants.

[dgibby]

28. Robots!

better add robots to your list, or for sure, some corporation will build one and swear it's a person!!!

[windoe]

29. The repeal of corporate personhood is a key that will unlock our Constitutional Rights

-another key is maintaining separation of church and state. Corporate Theocracy is a legal and ideological foundation of the military industrial complex. Without these two strangleholds, we might begin to free ourselves from further decay. There are definitely other keys but this is big.

[kentuck]

31. Excellent !

Should be the law of the land.

[meow2u3]

32. Just delete "artificial persons"

and replace it with "legal entities."

[cstanleytech]

33. I agree with #32, if you add that in then it leaves it

open as to what is an artificial person which some courts might rule as being any implanted embryos as well as potentially clones that while sentient would be denied rights because they are ruled as "artificial" by some asinine judge.

[TexasObserver]

40. Not a single state would pass it.

Corporations run America, and they run the states even more than they run the country.

You'd have a hard time even finding a sponsor in each state.

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. Rich people in general own the local branches of the Democratic Party.

Just look at urban policy in the US with public housing, developer
giveaways, and evisceration of the social safety net, most of which
is local and controlled by nominally deep blue precincts.

The only reason these rich bitches run to the left as they attain
higher office is because voter economies of scale favor pandering
to large segments of the voting public. But their original offices
were all purchased -- even, if not especially, in wealthy urban
areas where the bluest districts are.

[some guy]

44. update

I was going to say:
"shall enjoy only those rights not expressly denied them by the people, " should be changed to
"shall enjoy only those rights not expressly denied expressly granted them by the people, "

but I see in your update you had changed it from expressly granted to not expressly denied. I think you were right the first time.
You say we would have to pass laws granting specific rights they need to operate. I think if you leave it as expressly granted, then the burden is on corporations to re-write their charters, make the case to the people as to what they feel they need to be allowed to do.

If you say "not expressly denied" we spend a lot of time going through and passing laws of expressed denial. I'd rather have the burden on the corporations to make their case for existence, than on the people to wade through what corporations already do, and revoke bits and pieces here and there.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Thomas Jefferson sought an amendment like this in the Bill of Rights...

Along with a prohibition against standing armies in peacetime.

[bean fidhleir]

48. This would be better:

No intentionally created entity of any kind shall enjoy any rights or privileges not expressly granted by law to that individual entity. Such grant shall never include any of the rights or privileges possessed by human beings. Every such intentionally created entity shall cease to exist after 10 years, except that its lifespan may be repeatedly extended for additional 2 year periods by plebiscite. It shall be a felony equivalent to bank-robbery to urge the people by mass advertizing to continue the existence of any intentionally created entity.

That's the strong version. A weaker version would refer to "intentionally created non-biological entity"

[annabanana]

50. I like it...

Would it be easier to insist that the responsibilities that accrue to individuals are also due from corporations? If a person could go to jail for specific behavior, could we send a Board of Directors to jail?