Skip to main content

View Diary: Saving Our Democracy (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It only applies to "for-profit corporations" (16+ / 0-)

    so any nonprofit would not be subject to it as written:

    ‘‘SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States 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 or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

    ‘‘SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the
    people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

    ‘‘SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

    ‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the
    power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’.

    Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

    by willyr on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 10:16:43 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  But what about... (6+ / 0-)

      Those religions that are ALL about the money...

      failure to let THEM put money in politics is of course a breach of their religious rights!


      One of these days, I'm gonna learn that I'm only really good at convincing people when I'm being a wiseass.

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 10:21:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's look at it again: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, Evolutionary, VClib
      The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons

      If they're only the rights of natural persons, then no corporation - whether for-profit or non-profit - has those rights.
      •  You goddamned right. (4+ / 0-)

        Corporations are established by the state for specific purposes.  They have a much different and more limited set of rights than people.

        They have the right to own property.  They have some limited right to freedom of assembly.  They have the right to advertise their services, which does not imply a complete and total right to free speech.

        Corporations have no right to privacy.  There is an implicit subpoena power in the fact that they are chartered by the state.

        Corporations have no right against self-incrimination.  All documentation of any corporate action is evidence.

        The law as it exists now is distorted and disfunctional.  Sander's Amendment goes a long way towards aligning it with what it needs to be.

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 07:17:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "corporations are people, my friend" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pescadero Bill, cybersaur

          You've highlighted a point that seems to get lost in these pie fights, one that is so blindingly obvious it gets overlooked;
          Corporations are made up of people (and their rules, mission statements, balance sheets, etc). This is true of nonprofits and for-profits alike.

          Those people already have rights.
          They should not get a second set of rights.
          That's unfair, and unAmerican.

          This is a setup in which anyone in a position of power in any corporation gets two whacks at every ball.
          This deprives others (in the corporation or society at large) of an equal opportunity to exercise their rights, which are actually enshrined in the constitution, not in a radical and corrupt SCOTUS ruling.

          Does the Tea Party, or #Occupy have its own, distinct set of rights, aside from the rights of the people making up that movement, party, or union?
          no, they don't. And they shouldn't. They exist as an expression of the exercise of the rights of the people who comprise those organizations; in short, they are the fruit of those exercises, not the root.

          One does not need to delve into the fine print of corporate charters or obscure points of constitutional law to see this for what it is; a second vote for every 1%'er on every issue.
          That is the essence of unfairness.

          I wrote Bernie to ask him to put his argument in these terms.

          Class war has consequences, and we are living them.

          by kamarvt on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:33:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site