BETTER LATE THAN NEVER?
“I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it),” President Barack Obama wrote last week during a surprise public Reddit chat.
“Consider mobilizing?” Groups like Move to Amend and Public Citizen initiated that mobilization shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s radical-right quintet handed down that infamous decision in 2010. By July of this year, California had become the sixth state to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen’s United.
“Assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it?” The Court had an opportunity to revisit Citizens United earlier this year, or at least to limit its impact to federal elections. Instead, the same radical-right quintet expanded the reach of that democracy destroying decision by overturning a Montana Supreme Court decision which had sought to uphold a century old, state anti-corruption law.
While the President’s remarks will no doubt be welcomed by the already-mobilized movement, one should not lose sight of the fact that they fall far short of an endorsement of either Vermont’s proposed constitutional amendment or the measure introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the U.S. Senate. Both efforts call for the end to “corporate personhood” and a determination that money does not equal free speech under the First Amendment.
If the President truly desires to spotlight what amounts to a hostile corporate takeover of our democracy, he will confront Mitt “corporations are people, my friend” Romney in the upcoming Presidential debates with an openly stated support for a constitutional amendment that, as the Sanders measure provides, establishes that the “rights protected by the Constitution…are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes.” Indeed, that position could frame the issue for all candidates seeking public office in the 2012 election.
“… Mitt ‘corporations are people, my friend’ Romney …”
Everyone takes that quote out of context.
Romney was discussing where corporate profits go: to shareholders, ie, to people.
Romney was not saying that he believes a corporation is a person.
Romney might also believe that a corporation deserves freedom of speech and press rights, but it is not what he was saying in the above quote.
You are using the quote in a misleading manner. As do many.
Mitt does however believe that corporations may hide profits and use management fees as write-offs. We’ll also never know the extent of his off-shore private accounts. He may well be a billionaire not a millionaire. So bizarre that the public is willing to accept his one year released returns. Americans are truly silenced by the non-questioning press who never seem to confront the touring Mitt with these questions.
Parke @ 1-
This, as I understand it, was the context of Rmoney’s “corporations are people” remark-
If you think Rmoney doesn’t believe that corporations should be allowed to keep the “personhood” rights they’ve been granted, currently enjoy and abuse; and if you don’t understand what a departure this is from how corporations were initially conceived and how they were expected to behave, I don’t think you have the slightest idea what is being discussed here.
Parke @ 1
If Romney’s intention is solely to recognize the fact that corporations are made up of people and not that corporations are living, breathing creatures whose rights were enshrined by the founding fathers, then he has a funny way of showing it. Romney’s position is that corporations should be allowed to say, do and influence whatever they want.
The sole purpose of a corporation is to engage in commerce and turn a profit. Funny though, when you look at the Constitution it clearly says Congress has the authority to regulate commerce.
Parke Bostrom’s Etch-a-Sketch remarks @1 remind me of a the Watergate scandal song, Halderman, Erlichman, Mitchell and Dean. (See video below)
We’re Halderman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell & Dean.
Bostrom confuses the sophistries Romney used to justify his position on “corporate personhood” with his unequivocal claim that “corporations are people, my friend.”
Romney has never uttered so much as one word that would indicate that he does not subscribe to the concept of “corporate personhood.” His selection of Nixon hatchet man and Federalist Society founder Robert Bork as his principle adviser on Court nominations translates into a commitment to pack the judiciary with jurists who subscribe to the concept of “corporate personhood.”
One can recognize corporations as artificial, business constructs designed to shield their shareholders from liability without reaching the conclusion that they are “people” endowed with the same Constitutional rights as living, breathing human beings.
The fact that monies flow through corporations to people — huge sums to executives, like Romney — does not mean that these artificial business constructs are “people” any more than one could say that governments are people because people receive Social Security checks.
Where the framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned a representative form of democracy in which governmental authority ultimately rests with the people, corporations are utterly lacking in democratic accountability.
As Jim Hightower observed in Thieves in High Places.
In Failed States, Noam Chomsky observed that in “structure, the political counterpart to a corporation is a totalitarian state.”
Oh, one additional point with respect to Parke Bostrom @1.
An example of taking words out-of-context can be found in the GOP deceptively latching onto the ambiguous pronoun, “that” so as to pervert the President’s remark: “You didn’t build that.”
Where Fox ‘News’ and the GOP latched onto the ambiguity to falsely claim the President used the word “that” to refer to a business, context leaves no room for doubt. “That” referred to infrastructure.
There are no ambiguous pronouns to be found in Romney’s “corporations are people, my friend.” Romney’s addition of where the profits go in no way negated Romney’s unambiguous opinion that “corporations are people.”
Context does not support Bogstrom’s claim that “Romney was not saying that he believes a corporation is a person.” To the contrary, context simply reveals Romney’s flawed rationale that he offered in support of his opinion that “corporates are people.”
Parke @ 1,
You seem to be new here, so here’s a crash course, bradblog 101, to help you understand where you went wrong:
A. Things uttered by the President (or any of his minions) which reflect negatively on the almighty administration are ALWAYS taken out of context.
B. Things uttered by anyone from the opposition which reflects negatively on said opposition is NEVER taken out of context.
C. Things uttered by the opposition which reflects negatively on the almighty administration is ALWAYS a Fox News fueled lie.
D. Any further questions, feel free to ask Ernie. He’ll let you know the rest of the ground rules.
Happy Labor Day everyone!
Ah, another epic fail by WingnutSteve @7.
Of course it is. Why? Just like everything else you spew here Ernie, you’re right and whomever disagrees with you is wrong, because you say so.
wingnutsteve–You seem to be new to yourself so here’s a crash course in sense.
What the fuck does this mean?
I defy anyone to make anything resembling heads or tails outta that one. Really outdid yourself there, Steve.
Mark Crispin Miller nailed it when he said people like you are part of a movement that is a projective movement. You project what you do, your fear, and your low self-regard all over the place with no consciousness that that is what you are doing.
That and/or you’re simply a troll in troll’s clothing.
I may have suggested this before, but have you thought of taking up any other hobbies? Bowling, instead of trolling?
David, the comment is written in plain English, you should be able to understand it.
WingnutSteve @ 7 said:
Just for the record, Parke has been here for years, and has even guest blogged here in the past.
Talk about Orwellian spin. David Bossie, the President of Citizens United, described the call to amend the Constitution to overrule the infamous Citizens United decision — a decision that permits artificial constructs we call corporations to so dominate the airwaves that they can drown out the voices of ordinary citizens and destroy the free press function of insuring an “informed electorate†— as an effort “to overturn the First Amendment.â€
I stand corrected Brad. I figured if he’s been here for awhile he’d know the law of the land
As I said, WingnutSteve, another epic fail.
First, as Brad points out, Parke Bostrom, an election integrity advocate, has previously published articles here, like this one.
Second, you previously got caught with your pants down in latching onto Obama’s “you didn’t build that” statement. You dishonestly insisted upon advancing the Faux News canard that he was referring to businesses even after the full text made it abundantly clear that the word “that” referred to infrastructure.
From past experience, I’d long ago concluded that you have absolutely zero credibility, but, on that particular occasion, even David Lasagna, who goes out of his way to try to give individuals like you the benefit of the doubt, threw his hands up in disgust.
You are now confronted with Romney’s unequivocal “corporations are people” comment. David Lasagna @3 set forth the full context of that specific remark, and I carefully explained why there is no basis, in fact, for disputing that Romney meant what he said when he said “corporations are people.”
Now, if you can point me to some statement ever made at any time by Mitt Romney in which he expressed the view that “corporations are not people,” I’d be delighted to review it.
Absent that, I’d respectfully suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself by refraining from posting your fact-free ideological rants.
Hey knucklehead, where in my comment did I refer to anything about Romney? My comment was COMPLETELY about a left wing ideologue named Ernie Canning. The content of comment 15 makes my point.
Great job of jumping into the middle of a discussion and then ignoring what that discussion was about WingnutSteve.
You don’t have a point, but you’ve proven mine. I thank you for that.
Ah Steve,
Now I get why I didn’t understand what the fuck you were talking about when you said
You were referring to a previous nonsensical point of view from a previous nonsensical series of comments in a previous thread. You were thoroughly debunked in that thread, but since that was never acknowledged, yeah, why the hell not bring back that previous nonsense to contaminate this thread, too?
Now I understand.
Aren’t there tolls for trolls?
I understand perfectly what the discussion was about ernie. A viewpoint different than yours was expressed, you jump back immediately with your sarcasm “Parke Bostrom’s Etch-a-Sketch remarks” and references to some stupid song dated to the Nixon era.
In other words: You and your ilk alone are able to determine what the proper context of words from politicians are.
That’s what the “discussion” was about…
David, as I told you before. Just because Ernie says he’s right and someone else is wrong doesn’t make it so.
Your definition of “debunk” is ridiculous.
“Tolls for trolls!”
Great line, David. LOL!
Steve,
Not buying what you’re selling. You and I don’t agree on the fundamental meanings of words. We don’t play by the same rules. Makes coherent dialogue impossible. Here’s a link to the comment thread I was referring to where you are thoroughly debunked. You and I don’t agree on the meaning of that word either. Should anyone else be interested in who’s speaking more precisely or truthfully here, which one of us comes closer to something recognized as reality, I’ll leave it to them to decide.
https://bradblog.com/?p=9434#comment-474410
Thanks for this article. Here is Move to Amend’s response to Obama’s statement:
On Wednesday, President Obama called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United:
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
The Move to Amend coalition has been fighting Citizens United since Day One, and has been organizing against corporate rule for over a decade; we welcome Obama’s statement and his help ‘shining a spotlight’ on the same position held by the majority of Americans. He just doesn’t go far enough.
The good news is that President Obama’s comment has put this issue in the news and in the spotlight. Yesterday big money in politics was the topic of discussion over at HuffPost Live all day (where Move to Amend leaders were featured as guests twice).
The bad news is that the frame is all on Citizens United – as if that is when the problem began. Other organizations whose goals and campaigns are much more limited than Move to Amend’s are touting that Obama has “joined the movement.â€
That’s a dangerous stance to take. If we say that “overturning Citizens United†is what our movement is about, that is all we’ll get – the politics of 2009, when the wealthy ruled the country and big money ruled our politics. Not to mention failing to address the other ways that corporations use their so-called Constitutional rights to overturn laws aimed to protect the public.
Move to Amend is aiming higher, and we know that you are too.
Our amendment will address both of the spurious doctrines at play in Citizens United: the notion that a corporation is a person and that money is free speech. An amendment that rights both of these wrongs – with no loopholes – is the only amendment Move to Amend will ever support. You can count on us not to accept a watered-down, inadequate solution.
We are proud that our movement has the attention of the President and others in Washington DC, but we know the real work at this moment is not in the corrupt halls of Congress, but in our communities — reaching our neighbors to help us realize our collective power.
To that end, please help us use this opportunity of the spotlight created by the President’s comment:
Send this message to at least 5 of your friends and invite them to sign the Move to Amend petition and get involved in our campaign.
Check to see if there is a Move to Amend local group near you. If there is, please contact them to get involved; and if not, please consider starting one yourself or with your friends.
Sign up for our next Take Action Webinar on September 4th to learn about how to get involved in your community.
We are gaining in numbers and gaining in traction, but there’s still a ways to go to make the 28th Amendment a reality. Let’s keep our eye on the (real) prize and victory will be ours!
Yours for democracy,
Ashley Sanders, Ben Manski, Daniel Lee, David Cobb, Egberto Willies, Jerome Scott, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Laura Bonham, Leesa “George” Friday, Nancy Price, Stephen Justino
Move to Amend National Executive Committee
PS — Another way to get involved is to join our Stampede to Amend effort. Click here to learn all about it and find out how you can get involved.
“No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations. We run it for people” – Elizabeth Warren