Op-Ed: Reject Corporate Personhood
Reject Corporate Personhood from Populist
New Justice Sonia Sotomayor proved herself to be a good hire in her first appearance with the Supreme Court when she challenged the idea that corporations have broad First Amendment rights that the court should expand. She suggested that the court should instead reconsider the 19th-century usurpation of constitutional rights on behalf of corporations.
The Supreme Court is considering overturning not only the recent restrictions on electioneering by corporations and labor unions within 60 days of an election, but also restrictions that go back a century to prohibit corporations from contributing to federal political campaigns.
The case involves Citizens United, a non-profit corporation that sought to air a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season last year. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was originally argued before the Supreme Court in March, but the court ordered a new hearing for constitutional arguments for Sept. 9. The court seemed to be poised for a sweeping affirmation of corporate “personhood,” or the right of corporations to equal protection of the laws.
As John Nichols writes on page 20, Chief Justice John Roberts promised during his confirmation hearings in 2005 to respect judicial precedent — but that was before the balance of power shifted right with the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor. Now, with Sam Alito on board, he has pressed for a review of campaign finance laws that were upheld by the court as recently as six years ago.
Many court observers think Roberts has the votes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Alito and Anthony Kennedy to overturn at least large sections of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold. They also might overrule previous court decisions that upheld the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate money in politics.
Such a decision would tear away the veneer of citizen control over government and return us to the days of the Robber Barons in the 19th century. The Tillman Act, pushed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1907, banned corporate contributions to federal candidates. Many states have similar laws for state races.
We shall see what happens. It should be in the US Constitution that corporations are not people. "Proposed Constitutional Amendments to revoke corporate constitutional "rights," reverse Buckley v. Valeo, and establish a right to vote." If this were to happen, the courts wouldn't be able to perpetuate corporate control.
Just a funny line from the article...
The court also should be required to explain how a person, under the 14th Amendment, can be owned, as a corporation is.
All we can hope for is that they see how sinister corporations have become. We also will see who is really for the people... Who we can count on to help drive this essential change. We should only vote in pro-democracy, pro-people politicians. Most Republicrats are pro-corporation.
If you were a strict constructionist (like some members of the court) they would read the constitution as the framers had intended. The framers gave _people_ rights... not corporations. The question is, will they vote that way?