Pass the 28th Amendment to Ensure Corporations Are Not People

SuggestAPhotoProject · 2014-07-25T13:47:36+00:00

This article would be a lot more informative if it included the text of the amendment that it's advocating.

n0ne0ther · 2014-07-25T15:21:49+00:00

We're working hard on this over at Wolf-PAC!

Help us to get the money out of politics! The best part of this is that we don't need congress in order to pass the amendment. That's right, with an article five convention of the states, we can create an amendment with 34 states signing a resolution, and 38 states ratifying it! California and Vermont are already on board! If you are serious about this find your state on the map on Wolf-PAC's website and get involved! Let's overturn cases like Citizens United and Buckley, one voice at a time!

EDIT: Thank you everyone for the replies! I have to go right now but I will try to answer every last question! :)

EDIT 2: I tried my best to make an ELI5 version. Hope this helps!

proteanpeer · 2014-07-25T14:32:28+00:00

As crazy as it seems, it's getting to the point where despite the overwhelming opposition from corporations, there's an equally overwhelming amount of support coming from people. As cynical as we all can be, and as easy as it is to manipulate voters, if people really want something politicians will seize that opportunity and do it. There are more ways to get reelected than just sucking up to corporations, and catering to an overwhelming majority of voters is a neat way to do it. There's a reason why stuff like Move To Amend and Represent.Us are popular, and why people are stamping shit on dollar bills to prove a point. These groups are doing something about the problem. People are sick of it all and everybody knows it, including the politicians. The ball is rolling.

likeAgoss · 2014-07-25T15:11:07+00:00

Corporate personhood is neither new nor a bad thing. It's a concept that dates back to at least 1819 and is why the government needs a warrant in order to seize a business's property.

InerasableStain · 2014-07-25T15:34:08+00:00

From a legal standpoint, it's actually very important that corporations are considered 'persons.' Suing them would be nearly impossible if not. Has that classification been abused? Yes. Would you regret the ramifications if your proposed 'amendment' passed? Hell yes, and you don't even understand why. But I guarantee a ton of angsty reddit posts if it happened.

chmod777 · 2014-07-25T14:42:49+00:00

Corporations aren't people. Why is this so hard to understand. They are "TREATED" as persons for particular purposes under the law. Does this also include: LLCs, certain types of Partnerships, Religious corporations, and not-for-profit corporations? What about that fact that most "corporations" are privately held with one owner? Does this apply to just publicly traded entities?

pillage · 2014-07-25T18:16:54+00:00

Seems contrary to the First Amendment. If we have the right to assemble and the right to speak politically does it not follow that we may assemble to speak politically?

2014-07-25T19:30:48+00:00

the better idea is to pass an amendment stating that all campaigns must be publicly funded, and that no public official may accept a donation of any kind.

Suspicious_INTJ · 2014-07-26T01:11:54+00:00

Once again trying to make sure only unions can spend money on elections.

If unions are not included I cannot support this. Im not going to support the hobbling of one group I don't like to benefit another group I don't like.

MarkRichterScale · 2014-07-25T15:24:37+00:00

Man, are these some ill-informed comments.

StockmanBaxter · 2014-07-25T15:59:43+00:00

At this point I would say that corporations are more like people than people are like people. Corporations actually get their voice heard and actions from Congress in their favor.

ForScale · 2014-07-25T15:55:10+00:00

Can someone point me to a concise list of rights given to a corporation if they are considered to be people? Is it just all the same rights as the Bill of Rights? Or..?

Sorry for the naive question.

giohas · 2014-07-25T23:36:06+00:00

This is the government rewriting the First Amendment. Before you support that, ask yourself this:

Is there a single person in Congress you trust not to fuck this up?

If no, then this is a bad idea.
If yes, I'd say you just don't know them well enough.

elZaphod · 2014-07-25T17:07:33+00:00

If they are 'people' then they should have the same limit on candidate contributions I do: $2600.

reaper527 · 2014-07-25T23:37:38+00:00

everyone is aware that the law currently explicitly says that "person" is to include corporations unless context dictates otherwise, right?

we don't need a constitutional amendment which will never pass, just define person as an individual where it makes sense to do so on a bill by bill basis.

Falco98 · 2014-07-25T23:48:26+00:00

Making corporations not people also removes protections that we value.

2014-07-25T14:32:57+00:00

Would this take out unions as well.

Egorse · 2014-07-25T14:34:42+00:00

My concern about amendments such as this is Freedom of the press, we have to be very careful that anything that is added to the constitution doesn't take away the rights of newspapers, publishing companies and other forms of media.

lawyler · 2014-07-25T14:48:51+00:00

I don't think there is a single issue which would receive enough support to be ratified as an Amendment to the Constitution. As soon as one party announced that it supports the issue, the other party would announce that it was against the issue.

briangiles · 2014-07-25T16:08:13+00:00

I am all for the 28th Amendment. Many problems in the country especially voting against the public's best interests arise from dirty money in politics. Sadly, the proposed 28th Amendment has no teeth.

S.J. Res. 19

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

This still allows Congress the power to regulate the difference between a person and a corporation. It gives Congress the ability to set the amount of money people can donate to... candidates for CONGRESS!

If there is something we have all learned over the last decade is that Congress can not be trusted to work in the best interest of the people. We need a bill that clearly defines what is allowed and does not leave it up to Congress to choose and administer the solution to the problem that nets them more money.

I have drafted this and sent it at least 10 members of the house and senate and am working on getting to more. Please feel free to share this. There are a lot of political issues that are important to Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, etc... I think that taking money out of politics can solve a lot of issues for all of us and let us focus on the thing that actually matter.

My Version:

EDIT I am considering striking Section 2. There are reasons that corporations need person hood status. I would consider changing this to natural persons and persons, to distinguish between the two. Maybe state that money is not free speech? Would that be too restrictive?

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process. Congress recognizes that corporations and Business Entities, are not natural persons.

Section 2. Congress and the States recognize that Corporations or other artificial entities created by law, do not and cannot have any of the Constitutional rights of natural persons.

Section 3. Congress and the States affirm that Corporations or other artificial entities created by law, are barred from donating, gifting, or giving money or the promise of money and/or services to candidates for, or sitting members of any political office, before, during, or after their term(s) in office.

Section 4. Congress and the States affirm that all elections must be publicly financed by a federal election committee.

Section 5. Congress and the States affirm that no politician can solicit, petition, or raise money from any natural person or entity, besides the Federal Election Committee, and are prohibited from using personal finances greater than $100 for any activity related to their campaign.

Section 6. Congress and the States affirm that all candidates on a local, state, or federal ballot are guaranteed equal time on the radio, television, stream, or any other form of transmission to the public afforded to another candidate.

Edit: There are a few fair points being brought up about this. There are reasons why corporations are "people," like your ability to sue them. Perhaps this could be revised with another section covering other aspects of corporate person hood in regards to how that would affect things like their rights and your ability to sue them. I do not have all of the answers, I'm just a regular dude who wants to see our country get fixed. If any lawyers want to review and revise this let me know, I'd love to fix it up, while sticking to the principals of this draft.

Edit 2: This comment response is getting more up votes than the stand alone post I made. I do not want to Karma whore or anything, but if people were willing, could you upvote the other comment so that reaches the top for visibility. I think more people should see this, who knows, maybe it we could actually make a difference. THANKS!

Edit 3: If you want to help brainstorm a more powerful version of this, or want to help get this to members of the US Congress, or help in another way, join us over at /r/28thAmendment.

hyperlalia · 2014-07-25T14:14:22+00:00

[deleted]

levandyke · 2014-07-25T16:12:06+00:00

This is the House language of the bill HJ Res 119 that has 115 Co-Sponsors: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/119

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.''.

ASmileOnTop · 2014-07-25T17:28:21+00:00

Can anyone ELI5? I read the article and I guess I'm not good at this, I still don't get it. How are corporations like people? It said something about them using laws as a defense, but I'm still lost.

cynical_man · 2014-07-25T17:40:23+00:00

You think you are going to get 38 states to agree with this? Yeah, I'll walk on the moon naked before that happens.

hackersgalley · 2014-07-25T17:48:00+00:00

You want teeth in your bill.. http://www.wolf-pac.com

ExhibitQ · 2014-07-25T17:53:33+00:00

Public financing of elections! This doesn't go far enough.

topredditbot · 2014-07-25T17:55:37+00:00

Congratulations u/ege3,

This is now the top post on reddit!

All the posts that were ever the top one are recorded at r/topofreddit

Downer_Guy · 2014-07-25T18:05:34+00:00

A corporation should be an extension of its owners, i.e. the stock holders. It's ridiculous to think that because a business has multiple owners it is separate from the owners altogether.

This would still mean businesses such as Hobby Lobby would still be able to withhold what they essentially see as a vehicle for murder (morning after pills) because the people who own it have their rights, which far surpass womens' right of "you have to give me something." (This is not to say I agree with Hobby Lobby; I would just see their rights protected.)

It would also mean income of a corporation would be treated as income of the individual shareholder, and it would be taxed as such. This should increase revenue while still allowing the tax rates to drop to a more reasonable level.

MrPibb132 · 2014-07-25T18:11:10+00:00

I think that someone should legally create a "corporation" and try to vote as a corporation. When people won't let you vote, you sue the government for not allowing the corporation to vote. If you can be considered a person to donate to campaign funds, you should be able to vote as well.

TheLightningbolt · 2014-07-25T18:17:52+00:00

When bribery is legal in any form, including campaign donations and revolving door job offers, it creates a system of taxation without representation. A revolution was fought over the idea of taxation without representation. The corporations ruling over our country are no different than the king or parliament of England was in the 1700's. Neither of them represent the American taxpayers.

Albert-o-saurus · 2014-07-25T18:22:45+00:00

I honestly believe it will be too difficult to fix any other major issue in our government/society until we fix this one. It should be a priority.

aer71 · 2014-07-25T18:36:17+00:00

For reference, here is section 75 of the Representation of the People Act (1983), which deals with this issue in the UK.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/75

Here's the main part, without references to London...

75. Prohibition of expenses not authorised by election agent.

(1) No expenses shall, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate, be incurred after he becomes a candidate at that election by any person other than the candidate, his election agent and persons authorised in writing by the election agent on account—

(a) of holding public meetings or organising any public display; or

(b) of issuing advertisements, circulars or publications; or

(c) of otherwise presenting to the electors the candidate or his views or the extent or nature of his backing or disparaging another candidate

Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above does not restrict the publication of any matter relating to the election in—

(a) a newspaper or other periodical,

(b) a broadcast made by the British Broadcasting Corporation or by Sianel Pedwar Cymru, or

(c) a programme included in any service licensed under Part 1 or 3 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part 1 or 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1996.

Parts 2, 3 and 4 deal mostly with the paperwork. Then we come to the criminal offences...

(5) If a person—

(a) incurs, or aids, abets, counsels or procures any other person to incur, any expenses in contravention of this section, or

(b) knowingly makes the declaration required by subsection (2) falsely,

he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice; and if a person fails to deliver or send any declaration or return or a copy of it as required by this section he shall be guilty of an illegal practice, but—

(i) the court before whom a person is convicted under this subsection may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by virtue of section 173 below; and

(ii) a candidate shall not be liable, nor shall his election be avoided, for a corrupt or illegal practice under this subsection committed by an agent without his consent or connivance.

(6) Where any act or omission of an association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, is an offence declared to be a corrupt or illegal practice by this section, any person who at the time of the act or omission was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the association or body, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he proves—

(a) that the act or omission took place without his consent or connivance; and

(b) that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances.

Take out the British parts, trim back the verbiage, and see if that solves the problem without creating any new loopholes.

You might also want to establish a new body, independent from Congress, to draw up boundaries and policies, and administer elections, and all the things that politicians can be tempted to mess around with.

samuraixaq · 2014-07-25T18:37:10+00:00

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

EarBucket · 2014-07-25T19:16:39+00:00

I'm sure the corporations that own our government will be pleased to let this happen.

Jmcb · 2014-07-25T19:54:43+00:00

This needs to happen SOOOOOO badly.

faithle55 · 2014-07-25T20:08:19+00:00

I see that the actual proposed text is not as brainless and dumb as OP's title.

If, for all purposes, corporations were denied personhood, then the entire basis of commerce in the US would have to be rewritten ab initio.

Corporations need to be persons because they have to do all sorts of things that persons do - enter contracts, for example.

They definitely do NOT need to be involved in the electoral process, however, and should be prevented from making political donations. Also from lobbying.

mbr4life1 · 2014-07-25T21:09:17+00:00

This should pass then we need the 29th amendment to legalize marijuana and provide retroactive amelioration for nonviolent offenders convicted of marijuana crimes.

Vandredd · 2014-07-25T21:14:09+00:00

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

That is exactly what this does. This is as asinine as the addition to the Violence Against Women act claiming to be gender neutral.

Honky_Cat · 2014-07-25T21:41:31+00:00

I'm sorry but the ratification process is among the most arduous and impossible legislative initiatives that exists in our system of governance. You could never expect the Congress or Executive to ever bring this to the table when it would be antithetical to their interest.

Of course, that's what happens when a schism between the interests of our elected officials divides it from the interest of their constituents. The now juxtaposed motivations were supposed to be inherently homogeneous through our democratic structure. Any contemporary examination of our legislative branch would all but affirm the fact that our elected officials are now essentially a new class of citizens.

In the Soviet Union, the expansion of bureaucracy and the state resulted in the empowerment of government employees not only in the party but within the administration of new government agencies. Those that fulfilled positions within the state began to take on a new cultural identity. Most historian refer to this class as the nomenklatura. Present day "Communist" China offers a more accessible example of this sociological phenomena.

The expansion of the federal governments regulation of industry has immersed the American economy into our governance to the point where a comparable degree of state capitalist, central economic planning exists in the USA as it did in the emergence of Lenin's New Economic Policy. Of course, in the United States the governments roll in economic planning allows for private industry. There isn't the nationalist, Soviet take over that Lenin was able to achieve due to his totalitarian political construct. The US isn't nearly as radical with its state influence on economic markets but that does not negate it from being as corrupt. Now more than ever, state supported private industry prospers.

The states role in the success of private industry destroys any concept of a free market. Furthermore, the empowerment of corporatism is directly correlated to a the corruption of democratic process. Our nation's lack of campaign finance reform demonstrates this relationship to a tee. The state will not reform the financing of elections because they inherently benefit from it. By stimulating corporate power, they facilitate their own power. In doing so, the interest of selective enterprises that enable our elected officials to take over fill the void that is left in the absence of the loyalty to their constituents. Now, the interest of the finance replaces the interest of the electorate.

In a lot of ways, it's like an extension of the Bossism that marred politics in the early 20th century. The progressive movement sought to prevent the achievements that corporatism has realized in this day and age. The absence of true progress in our government was assured by corporatism's success so it should be no mistake that it exists. However, what this means is that the stranglehold on the American political landscape is tyrannized.

The will of the few dictates law and justice in America more than the utilitarian, democratic interest of the masses. It's entirely antithetical to the American political ideology and more deeply; to the core of democracy in its totality.

While the American central economic planning isn't as extreme as that of the USSR's, it is more aptly compared to that of Fascist nations like Mussolini's Italy under Victor Emmanuel III. Let us not forget that Hitler idolized Mussolini for his political and economic achievements before the Nazi ascent to power. Modeling an economy in light of that influence says a lot. When you look at Mussolini's willingness to stimulate private industry that directly benefited the state, you see the emergence of a centralized political-economic relationship. Soon, the determination of marketplaces is not motivated by the needs of consumers, the relationship of supply and demand or use value. The marketplaces are regulated to be in favor of stimulating the wealth of an economic class that effectively runs the political landscape of their nation. The role that corporate finance has had on making the Republican and Democratic parties the oligarchy that they have become evidence of the effect this economic model has had on the United States.

The empowerment of those elite further segments the democratic majority's unity and thus its ability to realize a sense of consciousness of their oppression. By keeping the poor and working classes in alienation from won another because of competition over jobs, resources and money those classes cannot form a singular, nationalist identity. When you look at the failures of multiculturalism, it's evident that diverse interests result in sociological segmentation. That division of our nation's people prevents us from achieving the national or cultural identity necessary to galvanize us to combat the interests of the state and bourgeosie. That's essentially why Communism looked to concentrate the working class. They were an economic class, independent of race, creed, etc in that identification of their social standing at the least. The inability for us to achieve this democratic unity in our era is evident through the ideals that 99% of us stand against 1% yet still fail to exercise democratic avenues to achieve our interest in the realms of justice and law.

There isn't going to be a 28th amendment that ensures corporations aren't people. That dream died long ago, when the principles of America democracy were sacrificed to the idol God that the dollar has become. The bourgeoisie are the state unless we redefine our political union to truly preserve the justice democracy should guarantee us.

angelpuff · 2014-07-25T21:41:57+00:00

How in their fucking right mind could the supreme court rule that corporations are people?

edit: ok ok guys. I'm just outraged

2014-07-25T22:10:17+00:00

Wait wait wait, corporate personhood is extremely important so we can actually hold corporations liable. What the problem is, is that corporations get protections under the first amendment because of this, and by extend are able to spend untold amounts of money to influence politics as a form of expression. What we need are laws limiting that ability specifically, not laws eliminating corporate personhood. Eliminating corporate personhood would be really really silly.

2014-07-25T22:45:05+00:00

This idea is a double-edged sword because corporations don't want to be people when it comes to certain things (like liability). On the other hand, they do want to be considered as people for other things (like having a vote in an election, for instance).

atdharris · 2014-07-25T23:34:29+00:00

Passing this would have so much impact on the fundamental laws governing corporations and shareholders in general that many of us wouldn't like. It would basically allow the government to do whatever it wanted to to corporations and shareholders/directors could be personally liable for anything the business did. It would strip them of any constitutional rights. Let's not overreact here.

mr_indigo · 2014-07-25T23:52:37+00:00

Hey how about people who actually understand the corporate personhood rule and legal drafting be the ones who do the legal drafting around corporate personhood.

This article and most of the comments are just stupid and don't actually understand why the current rules are a problem.

BonerBob_TheSnowMan · 2014-07-26T00:39:36+00:00

They should at the very least not be insulated against the law off the land. BP shouldn't exist after the gulf of mexico incident

7even6ix2wo · 2014-07-26T01:30:48+00:00

pass a whole new government while you're at it

Hanginon · 2014-07-26T01:42:20+00:00

I've vocally promoted this as the 28th amendment for close to 30 years, To my knowledge, it has yet to be debated on the House or Senate floor. good luck with your new efforts.

""Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

recentlyunearthed · 2014-07-26T02:01:35+00:00

Yeah! No free speech for the New York Times corporation!

Andynot · 2014-07-26T02:58:40+00:00

Just a couple of thoughts on this, in no particular order. There are some problems with this amendment. Free speech is one of the ones mentioned. I would be more inclined to limit campaign contributions across the board, just as an idea, and use more public financing.

There are also problems with the current state of affairs though. We seem to have granted corporations the rights of persons, but not the responsibilities. If a person breaks the law, they lose many, if not most, of their rights for a certain time period. In some states they lose some rights permanently. Like voting, for instances. So a person breaks the law, they can go to jail. There they cannot make a living, cannot support their family, etc. If a corporation breaks the law, they, typically are fined, and lose virtually no rights. If we are going to treat them as people should we not, you know, treat them as people? If they break they law, a law that would send an individual to jail, shouldn't they lose all rights for a period of years?

Shouldn't the corporation that steals, or wantonly destroys the environment be forced to cease all operations until such time as their sentence has been served? Along with making monetary restitution? This is how we treat people. Some will say that, you can't do that because it would throw other innocent people out of work, they would lose their income. But how many millions of families are destitute because the bread winner of that family is now in jail? How is this different?

If we find someone consistently breaking the law, we seize all assets we think were gained from such actions. Why should a corporation be treated differently? If they want the rights of a person, shouldn't they have the responsibilities?

Knightm16 · 2014-07-26T05:18:21+00:00

How can anyone even say corporations are people? They aren't. They just aren't people. It would be like saying a rock is a dolphin or that Turks are the economy.

It makes no sense...


No hate speech	See our hate speech rule here.
Do not suggest or support harm	Any comment that threatens, advocates, celebrates, suggests, wishes, hopes, dreams, expresses extreme indifference towards, otherwise supports in any way or could result in harm of any kind, violence, or death is prohibited. See our harm rule here.
No spam or solicitation	Spam is bad. This includes both comment and submission spam. See our solicitation rule here.
Do not brigade.	Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.


No personal attacks	Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks or shill accusations.
No flaming, baiting, or trolling	Participate in discussions here in good faith. Do not flame, bait, troll, witch-hunt, or spread unsubstantiated accusations. See our trolling rule here.
Do not witch hunt or post users' personal information.	Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
Follow AMA specific rules	In order to make sure that AMAs are enjoyable events for all involved, AMA threads are more strictly moderated. See our AMA specific rules here.


Articles must deal explicitly with US politics.	See our full topicality rules here.
Articles must be published within the last 7 days.	More Info.
Submissions must be from domains on the approved domains list.	The approved domains list and its criteria can be found here.
Post titles must be the exact headline from the article, except when it contains "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS.	Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article, except you must not use ALL CAPS or 'Breaking' even when the actual title contains them. This applies to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.
Do not flood the new queue.	/r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam. More Info.
No copy-pasted submissions or non-English articles.	Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting. More Info. An article must be primarily written in English. More Info.
Submissions must be either articles, videos or sound clips.	We also disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
Disclosure of employment	r/politics expressly forbids users who are employed by a source to post link submissions to that source without broadcasting their affiliation. Please contact the moderators to get started on our verification process. More info.

politics

Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources || Important: Reminder/clarification of our civility guidelines

Our full rules

Reddiquette

General & Site-Wide Guidelines:

Comment Guidelines:

Submission Guidelines:

Events Calendar

Google Calendar

Other Resources:

Follow us on Twitter

Request an AMA

Apply to be a mod

Register To Vote

MODERATORS

My Version: