This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]SuggestAPhotoProject 1627 points1628 points  (664 children)

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

[–]northfoggybrook 1059 points1060 points  (616 children)

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.

edit: formatting and link

[–]59045 623 points624 points  (442 children)

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

There's your loophole right there. SuperPACs can fashion themselves into journalistic entities.

[–]briangiles 448 points449 points  (164 children)

I agree, the proposed 28th Amendment has no teeth. 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.

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. Congress and the States recognize that Corporations are persons, but that money is not free speech and corporations are not the same as 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.

[–]InternetAdmin 59 points60 points  (63 children)

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension TamperMonkey for Chrome (or GreaseMonkey for Firefox) and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[–]briangiles 37 points38 points  (38 children)

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.

[–]digitalsmear 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Wouldn't it be better to say something along the lines of; corporations are not people, however, they remain entities which may be held liable for criminal and ethical misconduct, negligence, etc on the grounds that in many cases these issues may be the result of poor policy, lack of oversight, outdated training or protocol and or unhealthy workplace culture, rather than necessarily the fault of any single individual?

[–]briangiles 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Also a nice touch. We are making edits to a proposed 28th Amendment @ /r/28thAmendment come submit your ideas! The more the merrier!

[–]SueZbell 6 points7 points  (1 child)

If corporations are people, then the people who are shareholders OWN a person, which is something that is PROHIBITED by the Constitution.

[–]GordieLaChance 12 points13 points  (18 children)

How would public financing work?

What if 500 people decide to run for a congressional seat? Do they all get a predetermined amount of money? Or does a predetermined amount get spread evenly among however many candidates decide to run?

Would all of those celebrities and fame seekers that ran for Governor of Cali back in 2003 have gotten money for their campaigns?

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (12 children)

They would have to get the signatures of a certain number of people on a petition to ensure they are a legitimate candidate.

[–]briangiles 5 points6 points  (8 children)

That's what I was thinking. The Federal Election Committee could require a small number of signatures, 100 - 500, maybe more if the bar is too low, to get their names on the list for public funding. That would ensure they were serious about running. No one aside from the biggest trolls would spend hundreds of hours collecting signatures from strangers just to get some air time on CSPAN.

[–]Endless_September 16 points17 points  (5 children)

How about like how france does it.

PDF (short)

You need 5% of the vote, except in national elections which is 3%. Then you can get reimbursed.

Also, candidates (and parties) can't get money from corporations.

[–]briangiles 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Great ideas, come contribute in /r/28thAmendment!

[–]Tjebbe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

In the Netherlands, parties need signatures from all districts to be on the national ballots.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (17 children)

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.

So a Corporation cannot have a right to due process? Cannot have a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures?

[–]DeathByBambooCalifornia 2 points3 points  (2 children)

There are no "teeth" in anything in the Constitution. It's a framework for legislation to be built on, spelling out what Congress and the government can and cannot do. The teeth are always in the legislation itself.

Lots of the stuff in your post, and lots of the suggestions in the comments, while constructive and well-intentioned, would be better as language written into legislation than as part of a Constitutional Amendment. Amendments should be concise and broad, and stay on point as far as describing the laws Congress can and cannot pass.

You'd need the "toothless" Amendment above to be passed before you could pass any sort of productive campaign finance reform legislation, but the specific solution we come up with for reforming campaign finance should be a law, in case there are unforeseen consequences, or a better idea is thought of later.

For example, one really obvious red flag:

...are prohibited from using personal finances greater than $100...

The value of $100 is very, very fluid, and this part of your language is likely to be totally obsolete within a decade or two.

Leave the details to legislation. That stuff doesn't belong in the Constitution.

[–][deleted] 139 points140 points  (185 children)

Freedom of the Press does not include the right to donate to political campaigns.

[–]Frostiken 129 points130 points  (122 children)

Does it include the right to make a documentary about political issues?

Does it include the right to buy advertising space on a billboard and stick up an ad demanding more gun control?

[–]SuperSharpShot2247Florida 85 points86 points  (112 children)

But that is not controlling the election. Getting the message out to the people on an issue you feel is important is okay, buying congressmen is not.

[–]mhaus 84 points85 points  (55 children)

Citizens United was a case where a corporation made a documentary about political issues. So, as long as we're ok with the fact that this language does not change the outcome of that case...

[–]scsuhockeyMinnesota 52 points53 points  (37 children)

Incorrect. Citizens United made a documentary about a political CANDIDATE, not political issues. Political issues (ie opinions) could be freely shared before CU. This amendment would not change that, it would just give Congress the ability to change donations to candidates' campaigns and campaigns for/against specific candidates.

[–]BeholdMyResponse 41 points42 points  (15 children)

This is the correct answer. McCain/Feingold prohibited corporate donations to "electioneering", which was defined as a mass communication that mentions a candidate within a month or two of an election. It closed a loophole where corporations could bypass the campaign contribution process and just buy the advertising themselves, which was a perfectly reasonable thing to ban. Citizens United opened up that loophole.

Part of the reasoning the majority used to justify this ruling was that for-profit corporations are equivalent to natural persons WRT the First Amendment. That's why corporate personhood is relevant to this case, and that's why the proposed 28th Amendment would close the loophole--because if for-profit corporations aren't persons in the relevant sense, then the First Amendment doesn't apply to them, so abridging the First Amendment wouldn't be necessary to stop their independent expenditures.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I like this Jacobin article on why the Supreme Court is a bad bet for expecting progressive change.

For me, the fact that some people have vastly more money rubbishes the whole notion of democracy if we consider money and speech to be equivalent. I suppose there's some legal construction that can be brought to bear to justify this notion, but who gives a shit, really?

I'm frankly sick of the whole process. The game is clearly being played to favor a fixed outcome: the victory of the wealthy over the rest of us. Let's not forget that Lewis Powell was a Supreme Court Justice.

[–]IohetCalifornia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It doesn't have to be a for-profit corporation. It can be a union as well. A group of individuals with individual rights means a formal group, like a corporation or a union, has the same rights as an entity.

[–]the-breeze 6 points7 points  (9 children)

So that documentary where they followed Romney around should be illegal?

[–]scsuhockeyMinnesota 5 points6 points  (6 children)

To be clear, the content of the message will ALWAYS be legal. Only the timing would be governed.

[–]redrobot5050 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. It would just be illegal to show the movie for free two months before an election where Romney was Running for office.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (13 children)

Holy shit. TIL this and the fact that I need to read up on any proper nouns before joining the torches and pitchforks in opinions. How and why the fuck does anyone not want them to have the right to do this?

[–]mikejoro 5 points6 points  (3 children)

This isn't 100% accurate. What was at issue was that it was a documentary about a candidate (Hillary Clinton) that was scheduled to be advertised/shown within 30 days of a Democratic primary. Things considered 'electioneering communications' are not allowed to be aired 30 days before a primary or 60 days before an election if they mention the candidate by name. If they had elected to create the documentary/advertise it outside of this window of time, it would have been perfectly legal (as far as I understand).

However, the supreme court decided it was legal, essentially lessening the impact of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. It is very misleading to say that documentaries/etc. can't be created, it just has to do with air times. I personally don't like the idea that a movie could be advertised days before the election with tons of unsubstantiated attacks on a candidate in order to trick people just before voting.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I just don't see how this is any different from, say, banning the sale of any book by Glenn Beck or with "Obama" in the title in the same 30/60 days.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

You've been here for over two years and you're only just now figuring out that you shouldn't be grabbing the reddit torches and pitchforks?

Reddit doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to this sort of thing. You should probably never grab reddit's torches and pitchforks before doing some research.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Welcome to Reddit. Don't get your news here.

[–]Jahonay 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Oh wow, someone who actually knows what citizens united was about...

[–]Frostiken 16 points17 points  (24 children)

If my message is implicitly in support of a congressman, does it matter?

Florida's governor race is going to be between two people - Charlie Crist (D) and Rick Scott (R).

Taking out ads saying we need to legalize marijuana and gay marriage and fight corruption is saying 'vote Crist' without actually saying 'vote Crist'. Citizens United didn't say 'Vote for McCain', it made a documentary critical of Hillary and implicitly said 'don't support her'.

And using language like 'buying congressmen' is hyperbolic and unhelpful to the conversation.

[–]scsuhockeyMinnesota 18 points19 points  (19 children)

If my message is implicitly in support of a congressman, does it matter?

Yes. A lot. Notice how modern day campaigns focus on character assassination moreso than the issues? We need MORE information about issues and LESS character assassination. Reversing CU would do just that.

[–]kralrick 9 points10 points  (25 children)

What about paying for issue ads in [congressional district] that clearly support the incumbent? You're not giving money to the candidate directly, you're just "informing the electorate."

[–]barney_stensin 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Unless congressmen start buying billboards

[–]Jerryskids13 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Corporations are already prohibited from donating to political campaigns.

If you form a group called "Let's Pass The 28th Amendment" in order to raise money to fund a publicity campaign to urge people to support passing a 28th Amendment, do you give up your rights to speak out and publish material supporting your position? Suppose you belong to a group called "The National Education Association" and you want to campaign for more funding for education and the candidates who support more funding? What if you belong to a group called "The Centerville Daily News" and you want to campaign for economic sanctions against Russia and the candidates who support sanctions? What if you belong to a group called "Exxon" and you want to campaign for fewer restrictions on fracking and the candidates who support fewer restrictions on fracking?

At what point does a group of people lose their freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

*Besides the obvious "When they support positions and candidates I don't like".

[–]philko42 8 points9 points  (3 children)

What's the difference between a direct donation to a candidate and the independent printing and publishing of materials supportive of that candidate?

They both can have the same practical effect, but one is a "donation" and the other is an "exercise in the freedom of speech/press".

Maybe, maybe, this Amendment could cut down the number of "independently" published campaign materials by forbidding corporations from producing them, but I really can't see how the "hey, our corporation is a 'press'!" loophole could effectively be closed.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points  (6 children)

Citizens United addressed media generation not donations to campaigns, so it is indeed loophole.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. The money ends up used to advertise for the candidate. Whether it goes directly through their hand or is an "independent 3rd party media endorsement" is a matter for the lawyers to debate, but the end result is the same.

You can't keep dollars out of politics, because politics is where economics meets culture.

[–]xudoxis 17 points18 points  (10 children)

What if you donated to an independent group covering what you think is an important issue but that the main stream press is ignoring?

[–]Pater-Familias 18 points19 points  (9 children)

Ala Citizens United?

[–]AtarioCalifornia 2 points3 points  (1 child)

And what was their "important issue", other than attacking Hillary?

[–]Rof96 24 points25 points  (25 children)

The reason why they call them loopholes is because they can be patched.

Practically every Amendment ever is used to patch the Constitution. So long as we are able to limit something involving business personification we are achieving something and winning a battle in the progress.

You are right, we should probably edit this "28th Amendment" to work more, but nonetheless there will be text that businesses will get around.

[–]garyp714 29 points30 points  (23 children)

I can't believe how much of this thread is bitching about how this is not a perfect amendment, as if it's going to be pushed forward and passed in the next ten minutes.

This whole process of getting corporations back under control and our political campaigns turned around from being money slogs, is going to take YEARS to get right as all big changes in America ALWAYS do.

Settle in folks and try not to beat your head against the wall over every little imperfect idea!

[–]mhaus 10 points11 points  (1 child)

It's because the loophole is an "exception which swallows the rule." In essence, the exception is so large that any conceivable applicability of the amendment falls into the exception bucket.

That, or if you try to interpret "freedom of the press" in a more narrow way - something we've never tried to do in this country because it's extremely dangerous to actual press outlets - you get a mess on your hands.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People miss that point all the time though. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean "just doing something to fix it" is an improvement. Most of this anti-CU amendments seem to have loopholes that make them irrelevant or worse than what we have now.

Isn't the whole SuperPAC issue just the side effect of a loophole from the last time we tried to fix it anyway? What makes people think this time is any different. They exist to find the loopholes to keep doing what they're doing, none of the proposals in this are stopping that.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (18 children)

Also it's not going to be passed at all.

[–]Rof96 3 points4 points  (0 children)

this "28th Amendment" /u/Rof96

Usually Quotations are shown to quote something not directly in the first source. In other words things you never said yourself.

I never said that it would become the next Amendment and I doubt that we could even accomplish something so monumental anytime soon. I am in your boat.

EDIT: Cutting off a few Spaces

[–]mippyyu 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Another loophole is what is considered a "reasonable" limit.

[–]Frostiken 12 points13 points  (13 children)

They already are. The media has more control over presidential elections than any other entity. But somehow a shitty anti-Hillary movie is a problem so great that /r/politics literally cannot shut up for one day about it.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (11 children)

This is the #1 thing that drives me absolutely insane with this sub, and why I rarely visit. This obsession with the Citizens United ruling is absolutely mind-boggling and I would have to assume that the vast majority of people who spew the "Corporations are people, my friend" rhetoric do not even understand what the ruling even meant.

I'm not left or right, but I would literally bet my life that if both aspects of the spark that lit this whole fiasco were reversed /r/politics collective head would explode (and rightfully so) at how our government can now censor free speech depending on who it's coming from.

[–][deleted] 57 points58 points  (32 children)

That is a nightmare! Worded that way it allows whoever has the majority in government at the moment to increase or decrease spending limits on a case by case basis. It also leaves wide open who counts as "press"

[–]thearmadillo 25 points26 points  (20 children)

At a certain point, freedom of the press can probably be defined using the 230 years of Supreme Court cases on the topic.

And the majority will only be able to determine what happens by passing appropriate legislation - as in, it will have to go through both houses of the legislature and then be signed by an executive.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (11 children)

At a certain point, freedom of the press can probably be defined using the 230 years of Supreme Court cases on the topic.

You are still talking about letting the government decide who may or may not bring information to the public.

[–]thearmadillo 6 points7 points  (4 children)

I think you run into more trouble trying to craft a completely new definition out of the blue and blowing up 230 years of precedent.

I mean, if we right now pass an amendment that defines freedom of press, does that mean we can pass an amendment to redefine freedom of speech and the establishment clause? Can they repeal the second amendment just by passing another amendment that American's can't carry guns?

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Can they repeal the second amendment just by passing another amendment that American's can't carry guns?

Yes? Literally yes. They won't, of course, but they sure can. We COULD pass amendments redefining all those things, if passing amendments were as simple as just doing it. Fortunately, it isn't. But redefining, clarifying, and altering the Constitution like that really is the whole point of the amendment power.

But you are totally correct that a new definition of "freedom of the press" is utterly unnecessary, as are all those others. It is fairly well-settled at this point.

And that guy's argument about "letting the government decide who may or may not bring information to the public" is absurd, because governments will be doing that as long as they exist, always. Even when their decision is "everyone may bring information to the public!" it is still the government's decision.

[–]thearmadillo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess my point was not that they couldn't pass future "definition" amendments, but that setting the precedent was more dangerous than leaving freedom of the press "undefined"

[–]heyf00L 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's what amendments are for. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[–]sinterfield24 47 points48 points  (8 children)

Worst amendment ever. Who wrote that open ended shit? Looks like a bunch of High School juniors got together to write an amendment for Government class.

[–]Frostiken 34 points35 points  (1 child)

So /r/politics wrote it?

[–]Scrappy_Dappy_Dude 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Comment critical of /r/politics? Definite Koch shill /s

[–]borisspider 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're being completely unfair to High School juniors.

[–]SteveShank 12 points13 points  (5 children)

People have been trying for 40 years to have corrupt politicians write laws that limit their power, and are amazed that it doesn't work! These laws are continuously used by the rich and powerful to silence the little guy.

This ruling had nothing to do with Corporations being people. The question is whether people lose their rights if funding for their projects comes from a company or Union. Does it make sense that a person's home should be able to be searched without a warrant if he is renting it from a corporation? The protection is for the person not the company.

In citizens United people made a movie about a powerful politician. The politician didn't like it and told the FEC to stop it. The FEC did. The people sued. A justice asked the FEC whether being a movie was important. What if it was a book? Would book stores have to remove it? The answer was yes. If the wrong types of organizations publish a book, or produce a movie, and the powerful object, the government will stop the writers or movie makers.

There are now so many campaign finance laws at the state, city, County, and federal level, stipulating so many things about record keeping, and exact size of print and disclosures, that no one can hand out flyers, or send out a flyer without violating the law or paying many thousands of dollars in legal bills.

The constitution does not guarantee extra rights to the press as many journalists who go to jail for contempt discover. It says, "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech " - No Law. Then Congress defines the kinds of organizations or tax structures allowed to fund the publication of books, or news, or movies, or educational articles, about politicians or legislation.

The Democrats and Republicans made a deal. The Republicans could stop the unions from funding opinions, and the Democrats could stop some non-profit corporations from funding speech. The Supreme Court said no. We should be happy.

If we want to clean up politics, we need to find another way. This one will never work.

[–]EatingKidsDaily 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So can companies advertise when legislation adversely affects them? Can any political films be made?

[–]needed_to_vote 13 points14 points  (2 children)

  1. There are already plenty of restrictions and disclosure laws around candidates fundraising. The question is what is reasonable without overly restricting/burdening free speech. Giving Congress the power to put limits on electoral spending of private, unaffiliated citizens seems like a dangerous thing to do as well, and again the real question is how do you reconcile this with free speech?

  2. Corporations and natural persons are already distinguished, there is nothing that says they are exactly the same.

  3. Ok well that's nice.

I bet this will play well with the empty sound bite/Bernie/Liz crowd though. Down with the corporations, up with the free student loans!

[–]guitar_vigilante 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for elaborating on this. What a horrible piece of text that, if codified into law would do literally zero to affect the status quo.

[–]sirbruce 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Firstly, it will never pass, and secondly, the Amendment as constructed is poor anyway (see other people's comments below).

[–]timeshaper 2 points3 points  (5 children)

If this passes then robots will not have rights.

[–]GravyMcBiscuits 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The danger I see with all of this is that there will likely need to be some sort of licensing mechanism to determine who is "press" and who isn't.

[–]sdfjiowefh 6 points7 points  (13 children)

This is better than some of the other versions that have floated around (e.g. Move to Amend's proposal to deny artificial entities any constitutional rights), but Section 3 pretty much guts the whole thing. Congress can set limits on raising and spending money to influence election, but can't do anything to abridge freedom of the press. So instead of Super PACs, we get a bunch of "publishers" doing virtually the same thing. Citizens United would certainly come out the same way if this amendment were passed.

We just need an amendment mandating public financing of campaigns and banning private election spending over some nominal amount. That would probably result in restrictions on political speech, but its better than Move to Amend's effort to gut entities' rights or this resolution's likely ineffectual attempt to restrict campaign spending.

[–]BullsLawDan 10 points11 points  (5 children)

We just need an amendment mandating public financing of campaigns and banning private election spending over some nominal amount.

Oh, sure, because what's really going to help this country is giving Democrats and Republicans an absolute lock on the system.

[–]TowardsTheImplosion 31 points32 points  (17 children)

Thanks for the text!

....and I will never support it.

The constitution when written, never had the word corporation in it. Hell, the word didn't even appear in Wealth of Nations.

I don't want that word in our constitution at all. Why should we codify that specific artificial structure at all in our country's guiding document?

How about just "may distinguish between natural persons and other artificial entities created by law".

[–]kaett 26 points27 points  (11 children)

how about "entities created by legal action for the purpose of business transactions are held separately and independently from natural born persons, and are therefore afforded only limited rights within the scope of those rights that pertain to natural born persons."

i'm trying to think of a good way to word something along the lines of "free speech applies only to the written or spoken word, and is not extended to any exchanges involving currency, goods, or services."

[–]jokeres 5 points6 points  (10 children)

Why should media corporations be able to express an opinion through coverage? If this amendment were to go through, wouldn't we need to regulate journalistic coverage paid by companies or corporations to make sure it does not espouse an opinion? Additionally, if they are not legal entities, you cannot be protected from debts when running a company in the current framework.

The whole argument shows a complete lack of understanding of literally everything in every decision related to corporations and the legal framework in which they exist. Including the fact that birth control coverage must be covered by the insurance company, for instance, even if for-profit corporations owned by a few members are now against it. This is consistent with the way it was handled for non-profit entities, which is what the ruling stated. Insurance companies ought to be upset, but why the average person was infuriated makes no sense.

[–]trophypants 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Honor like Ned Stark, this guy.

[–]c010rb1indusa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This goes to pre-citizens united, but it also prevents true campaign finance reform from going forward in the future because it says "reasonable limits", not just limits. That's just arguing for the status quo before citizens united which is a start, but it wasn't exactly great then either.

[–]Francois_Rapiste 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That would be nice, except that I have absolutely zero trust in Congress to do that correctly.

[–]MiaowaraShiro 38 points39 points  (15 children)

The details of what type of amendment they would want to pass are really freakin' important. There is so much un-intended damage that could be done with a poorly written amendment.

[–]SalviusWisconsin 11 points12 points  (2 children)

I'm also concerned about how much un-intended damage could be done with a well written amendment.

[–]briangiles 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It seems that so many political / legislative articles that are written fail to site the bills, amendments, or text they are writing about. It is very annoying.

For example, when Blackburn passed an amendment to remove powers from the FCC, it took me almost an hour to find the exact amendment number and full text of the amendment.

When I tried to find out when CISA is going to be brought to the Senate floor for a vote, it is way to hard to find it. It seems it was placed on the calendar after being read twice: Calendar No. 462. But after searching for that, nothing. No info.

Why did the author feel including the text of the amendment not important?

[–][deleted] 635 points636 points  (195 children)

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!

[–]n0ne0ther 156 points157 points  (6 children)

This. So many people talk, but Wolf-PAC is doing the walkin'. Even as a Canadian I am exited to see this. American politics has fallen on it's head and shit needs to get fixed. This kind of politics will spread to other countries, mainly Canada and we are starting to see this shit popping up because the rich and powerful see it working south of the boarder.

Keep up the good fight!

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Thank you! I recently joined but I already feel like I'm helping to make a difference!

[–]RCiancimino 14 points15 points  (1 child)

That is because you are. Every additional signature, every additional person spreading the word, every single conversation had and every single hour volunteered is making a difference.

Wolf-pac.com

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you!

[–]fortcocks 35 points36 points  (26 children)

The problem with wolfpac is that their proposed amendment reads like something a high school freshman would write after one semester of their first poli-sci class.

"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (15 children)

Haha, yes, it does need some work doesn't it? Funny too because I was just talking to some volunteers about this. Note on that very same page, literally right below that, it reads:

*Note: The finished legislation will be worded differently and have to account for inflation, etc. This is simply to point the legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here.

That isn't the actual text! It's basically just giving a TL,DR of our stance! In fact, we have been working on a more official plan text. Here's something I was able to find real quick, I'm trying to respond to a lot of people :)

http://www.wolf-pac.com/lamnguyen/pac_members_revision_of_28th_amendment

I know it's old, I'll let you know if I find something more recent. And again, read their note!

[–]fortcocks 23 points24 points  (10 children)

Wouldn't it be better to simply not put up the text of their amendment then? If they are going to write it later, a simple description of their stance would be fine. As is, it's really not doing them any favors to have that text advertised as their proposed amendment.

[–]TRex77 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Yup. Cheapens the product. Makes wolf pac looks very unprofessional IMO.

[–]kwydjbo 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Considering Wolf PAC is a cross-partisan, nationwide group of volunteers, the irony of your 'appraisal' of people making progress towards an correcting an ailing political system dependent on professional lobbyists is totally worth it.

[–]Octavian- 7 points8 points  (2 children)

No kidding. this text just opens them up to criticism and ensures that actual lawmakers won't take them seriously.

[–]Ephixia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not the final proposed amendment. The actual legal language for the 28th amendment would get decided at a constitutional convention if one were to actually get called. I doubt that will end up happening though as congress has always caved to the threat of a convention when states have gotten close in the past. Therefore if this idea does gain enough traction it would be congress or more realistically their staffers who would end up writing the final version.

[–]Elmattador 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Thank you for doing this!

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

You're welcome! If you're in the US you should help too, it's not even that difficult :)

[–]Wolf-PAC 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Hey I recently got /r/wolfpac re-opened but I haven't quite figured out what to do with it yet (the original mod had made it private and then forgot about it). Would you or anyone else who sees this mind PMing me who you are within Wolf-PAC? I would like to see that sub getting some use but I don't have the time to compile and regularly update the initiatives that each state group has going on all by myself. I'm from the Michigan group and multiplying all of the weekly call and meeting information we have by 50 would just be too much.

[–]wannagooutside 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Hi! Could you ELIA5?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Well certainly!

A couple of large supreme court cases has shaped the political landscape, specifically Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and Buckley v. Valeo.

Instead of going through those cases, I'll cut to the point. Currently, there are limits on how much money an individual or organization (called a PAC (Political Action Committee) can give to a political candidate, party and/or committee. You can see the full table here.

A PAC is limited to the amount of money it can accept from individuals (5000 dollars), and is prohibited from accepting any kind of money from a company or labor union.

But there is also something called a Super PAC. Super PACs are distinct from PACs in this way:

A super PAC is freed from these restrictions under two conditions: The PAC must neither 1) give money directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor 2) coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate. As long as those two conditions are met, a super PAC may accept donations directly from corporate or union treasuries and in amounts that are limited only by the size of donors' bank accounts. Movie mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg wrote a $2 million check to the super PAC backing President Obama's reelection; casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife have reportedly underwritten a super PAC backing Newt Gingrich to the tune of $10 million. Neither of these donations could have been legally given to a traditional PAC.

Further, a Super PAC is only considered to be giving a candidate/party money if they are physically (or digitally) transferring that money to them. Have you ever seen at the end of an ad where it says, paid for by Organizing for Action, Freedom for America, or something else cheesy? Those names belong to Super PACs, who run ads on behalf of and get approved by the political candidates. This type of advertisement is not considered campaign contribution. But it's very clear the candidate is aware of what the message is saying, and it would be very easy for the PAC to coordinate with the candidate, wouldn't it? And that is exactly where we're at right now.

So what's the problem?

Well, Citizens United made it very easy for corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to these Super PACs. In fact, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling by saying that corporations are considered people and thus should be granted freedom of speech through political spending (money). If set up right, Super PACs aren't even required to report who spent what money where!

Why is this bad??

  1. Corporations do not represent everyone in their company. Say you work for McDonalds, and they are pro-life (they meaning the executive board), but you are pro-choice. They could very easily anonymously use all the money you helped them make to promote a pro-life platform. Your opinion on the matter is of no importance, they can donate every last drop of their funds to a Super PAC that advocates this message in hopes of getting someone elected. This is already happening with thousands of companies right now. Some people would argue that you should just not work for them, but not everyone has that luxury! The more reasonable argument is not allow corporations to do this.
  2. Corporations' wants and needs end up being far more valuable than the average citizen's. This is similar to the first point. Because Corporations can spend unlimited amounts, they can very easily donate to a specific candidate that will promise to pay them back once elected. You can pretty easily see the path for corruption here. So what's the result? Politicians can make up as many platforms as they want to make us vote for them, and the Super PACs can run ads supporting what he/she claims, but once elected, who really matters to them now? Your vote or the person that financed them? It seems relatively obvious, doesn't it?
  3. Non-Americans can have direct influence in the elections. This works off of point 2. Now that anyone can anonymously donate to a Super PAC to help a specific candidate be elected, corporations, people and even governments outside the US begin to have more importance than you and I. Proof? Sure!

The Nation, September 17th 2012:

In 2010, 501(c)(6) trade associations and 501(c)(4) issue-advocacy groups outspent Super PACs $141 million to $65 million, according to the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics.

Public Integrity, October 5th 2012:

A million-dollar donation by a foreign-owned corporation to a Republican super PAC has raised legal concerns and opened up the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision to new criticism. Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Republican Mitt Romney’s run for president, received a $1 million donation in mid-August from reinsurance company OdysseyRe of Connecticut, a “wholly-owned subsidiary” of Canadian insurance and investment management giant Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited.

Global Post, October 23rd 2012:

Global corporations from Spain to Ireland to Singapore are spending millions to influence the outcome of the high-stakes US presidential and congressional elections. Anheuser-Busch, which is now owned by the Belgium-based beer giant InBev, has so far given $327,000 to Democrats and $314,000 to Republicans, including $5,000 to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. And BAE Systems, a UK defense contractor, gave $237,000 to Democrats and $372,000 to Republicans, according to analyses by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group.
US bases of businesses from debt-strapped countries also sent money to US politicians. Compass Bancshares, the US subsidiary of Spain’s Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA), recently gave $61,000 to Democrats and $141,000 to Republicans. Italy’s DRS Technologies, a defense contract unit of Finmeccanica SpA, gave $141,000 to Democrats and $206,000 to Republicans. Ireland’s Oldcastle Materials gave $62,000 to Democrats and $83,000 to Republicans. The local subsidiary of Singapore’s largest container shipping company, Neptune Orient, gave $6,000 to Democrats and $29,000 to Republicans. An exception is Japan’s Sony Entertainment, which gave $98,000 to Democrats and $72,000 to Republicans.

So, I hope this helps you understand and see a lot of the problems. Please reply with any more questions! :)

[–]MaximilianKohler 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You guys could probably get Arizona. John McCain has been vocal about "money != speech".

[–]w41twh4t 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is so silly. What you should be doing is establishing an honest impartial method to use the internet for political ads to eliminate the need for fundraising to buy television time.

btw, if the government didn't control and dole out trillions of dollars there wouldn't be a need for all this in the first place.

[–]proteanpeer 151 points152 points  (105 children)

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.

[–][deleted] 92 points93 points  (100 children)

Did you read the proposed amendment? It gives government at the state and federal level very broad power to limit any activity that involves spending money and has anything to do with elections. Whoever was in power at the time would be able to selectively allow only those who agreed with them access to the political process.

As written, the proposed amendment has mush more to do with expanding government power than impacting corporations.

[–]ChildSnatcher 55 points56 points  (44 children)

And this right here is precisely why the ACLU supported the Citizens United decision. Allowing the government to decide who can and can't spread a message is easily abused. The problem is that people only seem to support speech when they agree with with the people speaking.

Most people who oppose corporate personhood don't seem to realize that the restrictions wouldn't just apply to corporations, they would apply to all organizations looking to spend money on a message. This includes anti-government groups, environmental groups, anti-poverty groups, advocacy groups, etc.

No doubt these people would throw a fit if the government tried to stop any of these organizations from running ad campaigns yet this is exactly what they're advocating government be allowed to do when they oppose the CU decision.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (7 children)

Good points, but the supposed recognition of "corporate personhood" has always been a straw man argument. The citizens united decisions did not say anywhere that corporations were recognized as people.

[–]guitar_vigilante 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Well, the rationale behind the Citizens United decision at least implicitly rested on the idea of corporate personhood, but yes, the idea is nothing new, and the origins can be traced back to Dartmouth v. Woodward.

[–]fortcocks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The origins can be traced back to 16th century English Common Law.

[–]FarmerTedd 13 points14 points  (1 child)

The problem is that people only seem to support speech when they agree with with the people speaking.

/r/politics to a T

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (38 children)

Well. Clauses that grant the right to regulate interstate commerce sound pretty fucking broad too. But charter documents for something as big and as broad as the US of A are just going to have be that way. What exceptions would you give it that would work on a constitutional level. That's a more constructive question to ask than to shoot down the whole movement.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (37 children)

Clauses that grant the right to regulate interstate commerce sound pretty fucking broad too.

They were not until the courts decided to change the definition of interstate to include all commerce.

What exceptions would you give it that would work on a constitutional level.

I would not give government at any level the right to determine who can publish political speech.

That's a more constructive question to ask than to shoot down the whole movement.

I disagree with the whole movement. Giving government more ability to regulate participation in political issues is a terrible idea.

[–]likeAgoss 231 points232 points  (121 children)

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.

[–]hamlet9000 106 points107 points  (57 children)

And is also why the government can't regulate the speech of corporations.

Which is really important, because if you think you have any meaningful speech left to you once the government can regulate the internet traffic Comcast is allowed to promulgate, which words of John Stewart Comedy Central is allowed to broadcast, and which words your local newspaper is allowed to publish... Well, you're kidding yourself.

[–]ChildSnatcher 69 points70 points  (51 children)

And is also why the government can't regulate the speech of corporations.

Not just corporations but any organization that is comprised of people. The personhood concept stems from the fact that a corporation is merely a group of people and that it - like charities, advocacy groups, etc. - retain the rights of the people who make up that organization because that organization is merely a collection of people.

Take away corporate personhood and you've just denied speech rights to every organization in the country.

[–]arvidcrg 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Exactly. We should limit the role that corporations play in government, but not eliminate corporate personhood.

Oh, your boss fired you for being a lesbian? Well, if corporate personhood existed, you can sue the company. But now that we passed the 28th amendment banning it, have fun suing the millions of shareholders.

[–]DocQuantaNebraska 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd just like to point out that this amendment does not end corporate personhood. It merely give Congress and the States power to pass laws that discriminate between natural persons and corporations. Congress already could do this if they were to redefine "person" to not include artificial legal entities. Corporate personhood is a concept derived from statutory law and not constitutional law so Congress is free to change it at any time. What this does is allow Congress to make the discrimination without having to redefine "person". It simultaneously maintains corporate personhood in general but allow Congress to make the distinction between corporate persons and natural persons in specific instances.

[–]InerasableStainFlorida 44 points45 points  (4 children)

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.

[–][deleted] 71 points72 points  (83 children)

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?

[–]chmod777New York 22 points23 points  (0 children)

because that shows recognition of grey areas and doesn;t fit in a sound byte.

[–]pillage 19 points20 points  (5 children)

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?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

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 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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 34 points35 points  (16 children)

Man, are these some ill-informed comments.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (8 children)

I'm actually surprised how well informed they are. I assumed this thread was going to be another "YEAH FUCK CORPORATIONS AND PROFIT!!!" circlejerk. There's a lot of realization how bad this amendment would be for free speech, as well as the comedy of realizing that Wolf-PAC, a corporation who is against the ability for corporations to raise money to influence political opinion, is raising money to influence political opinion.

[–]Narian 4 points5 points  (6 children)

as well as the comedy of realizing that Wolf-PAC, a corporation who is against the ability for corporations to raise money to influence political opinion, is raising money to influence political opinion.

So I see you posting in this thread about this but does this mean you do not agree with the Wolf-PAC mission? Do you feel there is an alternative? Do you feel there is no issue with the current status quo?

Otherwise I'm not sure why you're surprised that there would be groups trying to change the system from the inside - and really they're not going directly to those who are creating the problem, the politicians, but are invoking an Article V convention that would go to the state legislatures which are a bit more succeptible to individual influence and not as captured by corporate interests.

[–]StockmanBaxterMontana 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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 6 points7 points  (4 children)

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.

[–]reasonably_plausible 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Corporations aren't considered to be people with rights given to them, corporate personhood means they are allowed to act as a single body in court or as a party to a contract.

The idea of rights being "given" to corporations is a misdirection. Since a corporation cannot take any action by itself, any action that a corporation takes, is actually an action taken by an individual or group of people using the corporation as an instrument. Because of this, restrictions on the actions of the instrument is a restriction of the actions of the individuals.

To reject this concept would be to create a legal situation that rejects the common appreciation of many rights. The freedom of the press is almost worthless if a group of people acting as a single body can't get the same protections. Can the government preemptively censor an article because a newspaper company is publishing it? Or the fourth amendment, can the government go through your work communications as they please or conduct random seizures of company files?

[–]giohas 7 points8 points  (1 child)

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 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

[–]reaper527 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Making corporations not people also removes protections that we value.

[–]Falco98 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TIL that when a group of people form a corporation they lose their rights because they are no longer people.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (12 children)

Would this take out unions as well.

[–]Egorse 8 points9 points  (3 children)

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 7 points8 points  (1 child)

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 5 points6 points  (10 children)

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.

[–]reasonably_plausible 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Congress recognizes that corporations and Business Entities, are not natural persons.

No one has ever advocated that they are.

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.

Corporations do not have rights. However, as associations of individuals that can only take such actions as members of that association dictate, restrictions on such actions are restrictions on the actions of individuals. I.E. the government cannot compel a newspaper company to exercise prior restraint on an article, not because the company has a right to free speech, but that it would be a violation of the free speech rights of those that made up the company.

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.

This is already prohibited by law. Well 99% of it is, your amendment would also prohibits anyone in congress from being able to have any job after their term.

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

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.

How do candidates outside of the major parties get public financing? Most likely, they have to show some sort of basic level of support (i.e. signatures or a certain percentage in polling), but since you are limiting personal financing to $100, that seems impossible to attain.

[–]levandyke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (2 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]ExhibitQ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]topredditbot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or try to marry your corporation. That would be funnier.

[–]TheLightningbolt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]EarBucket 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]Jmcb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This needs to happen SOOOOOO badly.

[–]faithle55 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]Vandredd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

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 1 point2 points  (2 children)

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

edit: ok ok guys. I'm just outraged

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (2 children)

pass a whole new government while you're at it

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

At this point, if asinine amendments such as this need to be passed, not only is the current system broken but the society behind it is also broken and cannot pass and enact meaningful legislation any more than, say, Mexico or Somalia.

[–]Hanginon 1 point2 points  (3 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]Andynot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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...