I am very deeply involved in the "occupy" movement and I see the absolute necessity of making people aware of their power to change things. The focus of the movement on the 1% that has far too much control over the 99% is proper and well reasoned. For unlike economic progress and economic development, where the outcomes can be greater than the sum of the parts, power is a zero sum affair. One does not gain power lest others lose it. And a move to diminish the power of the 1% is a move to grow the power of the rest. The power of the 1% can also be diminished by empowering the people directly. But that is not the current public perception and preoccupation. The public is an emotional lynch mob at all times. And those who do not "play" to that emotionalism will not succeed in getting anything done. It is always the "shock doctrine". We must seize the moment or be left behind.
This is the time for a constitutional amendment for several reasons. But the most important reason of all may be to illustrate that the people can, in fact, change the constitution in spite of the current government and the current corporations.
I can find not one "person" (not counting corporations, of course) that are against limiting the political speech of corporations. And that is even BEFORE they actually understand the problem imposed by corporate shields. Most on the "left" feel that corporations control too much money and that they can simply drown out the free speech of others. And, for the "left", it is because corporations have this ability to drown out others, that the all seeing government should regulate them. That may be good enough for the "left", but it is not good enough for the "right". And I suggest a completely different and, I think, more accurate and rational mode of attack:
The reason that corporate political speech rights must be curtailed is because corporations SHIELD the people conducting political assault from legal apprehension and punishment. If the object of political slander/libel can prove that the corporate entity lied maliciously, then the only legal recourse is to shut down the corporation via financial award to the plaintiff. But the damage is already done, and the corporate coffers have been drained by the heretofore mentioned malicious actions of the corporate entity, i.e. all the money has been spent on the lie propagation. And those who financed the operation are not legally liable for the harm they have caused. They paid for the lies but do not have to stand up for them.
The act of slander/libel harms the public at large and so people nor corporations should enjoy constitutionally protected free speech to an extent that allows them to go unpunished. Consider the ramifications of the Republican Party or the Bush Campaign actually financing the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". In all probability, George Bush would have been forced to accept responsibility for the lies as they were being propagated, and the campaign would not have been waged in the first place. And if it had gone forth, then the perpetrators (including Bush) could have been brought to justice. In fact, neither of these actions were possible because of the "corporate shield". The lies were broadcast and the people funding the operation were essentially invisible. And the black robed hoodlums have, in my opinion, committed treason when they ruled as they did in Citizens United. There is no way in hell that the perpetrators of malicious lies should be shielded by a corporate entity placed between the public and the perpetrators. And if the claims are not lies then the candidate for office who is helped by these claims should stand by them.
So here we are: We cannot find justice in the courts until we remove the totally incorrect proposition that corporations have the rights to free political speech that were intended for real people. Real people go to jail or have their personal assets seized when they are guilty of harm to others. Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE and cannot be held accountable as can living people.
The left will forever fall in love with campaign finance reform and seek to advance the "goodness" of it as a rider to any and every correction of injustice they can find. And in so doing they inevitably shoot their feet off. Please consider that public financing of elections will not prevent political assassination of the participants. The problem of political assassination by the 1% perpetrated on those who would advance the power of the 99% is a totally different issue than campaign finance reform. The problem of corporate "person-hood" with regard to political speech must be dealt with here and now and not be muddled by libertarians and other "right wingers" claiming that persons should be able to spend there money as they please. It has nothing to do with the rights of actual persons. It may even be OK that actual persons can make all the political statements they want so long as they belly up to the bar and drink their whiskey just like the rest of us. Accountability matters.