Skip to main content

Today I received an email asking me to write my Senators about supporting a new constitutional amendment to do away with the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions by the US Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, so I am merely expressing my opinion. I leave it to everyone who reads this to consider its merits and if it makes sense, feel free to use it or enhance it in your OWN letter to your Senators. We cannot expect change if we do not define what that change should be. Thanks for taking the time to read this through to the end.

Please vote YES on Senate Joint Resolution 19. Contrary to the old saw, "Money talks", money is nothing more than a medium of exchange of value. The fact that we spend our money on something or someone does not represent speech as set forth in our Constitution (US Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding). Consider this. Suppose that I have more money than anyone else in the world. Does this in itself allow me to dictate policy, procedure, process and legality to everyone else in the country, or perhaps even in the world? That is patently absurd. May I express my opinions openly and without fear of retribution in accordance with the First Amendment? Yes. Is the mere fact that I have so much money in any way significant to my opinion? No.

Now consider this. Can a corporation be subject to call-up for military duty? No. Can it give birth to a viable human being from scratch? No. Can a corporation be jailed for partaking in grossly illegal activities? No. Can the corporation vote? No. So what, exactly, gives a corporation the expectation of being treated legally as a "person"? If a corporation is truly a "person" when will it be given the vote, a right guaranteed under the constitution? Rights without responsibilities are the purview of tyrants and oligarchs. They have no place in these United States.

If we cannot answer these questions in a meaningful, logical and truthful way, how can we as citizens of these United States of America allow these two conditions to persist? After all, we are all equal under the law. There are no "super-citizens", corporate or financial in nature, according to our constitution.

The technicalities of law which produced the 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court for Citizens' Rights and McCutcheon overstep the bounds of rationality and need to be overturned. Please join me in seeing that this is done, and soon.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A Corporation does not represent its stockholders! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alypsee1, BlackSheep1, Lujane

    A Corporation exists for the purpose of engaging in commercial enterprise.  It may or may not have stockholders.  But, if has more than one stockholder, that corporation should not be able to engage in any political activity because the corporation cannot effectively represent the interests of all its stockholders.

    It must, by necessity, represent the interests of some more than others, and when it does, that is not fair to the minority interests.

    If Money is Speech, Speech isn't Free! I wonder what it is about that that Antonin Scalia cannot understand?

    by NM Ray on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 02:20:27 PM PDT

    •  NM Ray - as long as the Congress can set their (0+ / 0-)

      tax rates and the executive branch can regulate them, corporations will have the constitutional right to influence all branches of government. Exactly how they can influence them is certainly regulated, but at a fundamental level they have rights under the First Amendment. Your proposed law would be unconstitutional.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 02:37:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wish I had thought of this. (0+ / 0-)
  •  PackerFan - I wouldn't send that letter (0+ / 0-)

    because the SCOTUS has never declared that a corporation is a person with all the same rights and responsibilities of a "human person".

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 02:32:57 PM PDT

    •  True, but it's OK to send the letter. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Santa Susanna Kid

      To me the letter clearly expresses the dissatisfaction with "Citizens United".  On a technical level you are exactly right.  But on an emotional level the letter makes sense and expresses a clear position on the issue.

      Send it!

      •  The problem is the Senators from Texas (0+ / 0-)

        know that the SCOTUS has never declared that corporations are people and will dismiss the letter out of hand because it demonstrates that the writer doesn't actually understand the issue. I think it's great to send a letter encouraging Senators to work on an Amendment to overturn CU, although I haven't seen a draft of one yet that doesn't appear to have overwhelming unintended consequences.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 05:48:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Senators will never read it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          A staff member will skim it and put it into a category.  The category will be within a larger group that is generalized as in opposition to Citizens United.

          Can you seriously disagree with that?

          •  Why not send a letter encouraging them (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            to vote in favor of the Amendment without all the statements that aren't true? Wouldn't that work just as well if the letters just go into a "category"?

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:40:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  On that we agree! (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, it would work "just as well".  And PackerFan's letter will work "just as well" as a letter that doesn't have the errors.

              Obviously we can't know all the labels of the categories that the staff may use.  I'll submit that one label might have something to do with sincerity as opposed to "form letter solicited over internet blog".

              If there is such a category, then PackerFan's letter has a good chance of getting pigeon-holed there.  That might give it a slight chance of having more weight than the technically-correct form letters.

              OK, OK, this argument only pertains to Cornyn.  :-)

              PS  We disagree.  I respect your opinion.  Thanks for engaging!

    •  The SCOTUS never will declare such a thing (0+ / 0-)

      because it would be suicide- a 7th grader would be able to sink that ship after a cursory glance over the constitution. All the cynicism toward PackerFan's letter, if taken to its logical end, would never condone a letter to our congressman that wasn't supremely researched and scoured for every error. This is not feasible and is counter to the essence of a representative democracy.

      That aside, the SCOTUS has granted corporations some rights and responsibilities accorded to the "human person" by the Constitution. Most egregious is their work on campaign finance through explicit decisions, defense sustainments, and various loopholes.

      PackerFan, send that letter. Then research more and send another letter. Then another.

      An army of sheep led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by a sheep.

      by intelink on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 06:23:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It'll just get you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a Cruz News in your email box every week.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site