In this time of hyper-partisanship, blowback from the Supreme Court\u2019s 2010 decision in the Citizens United <\/em>case is throwing some surprising bedfellows together from the left, right, and center of the political spectrum. \u00a0Just how reviled are the effects of that decision\u2019s unleashing of the influence of corporate money and wealthy individuals into elections may be measured by the temperature of the angry remarks of high-profile politicians as varied in their political stripes as Arizona Senator John McCain, President Obama, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.<\/p>\n

Just listen to a straight-talking McCain when he recently admitted to a Republican gathering that,\u00a0 \u201cI think the outside Super PACs and others is [sic] so disgraceful that I\u2019m ashamed of the United States Supreme Court in their decision on United<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or remember the president\u2019s unprecedented public chastisement of the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union address? \u201cWith all due deference to separation of powers,\u201d the President intoned in his most serious professorial diction, \u201clast week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.\u201d<\/p>\n

Like Obama, now-retired Justice John Paul Stevens refused to soft-pedal his condemnation when he composed his dissenting opinion at the time of the Citizens United <\/em>5-to-4 vote.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court\u2019s disposition of this case.<\/p>\n

\u2026 In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant.\u00a0 Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0They cannot vote or run for office.\u00a0 Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.<\/em><\/p>\n

The majority\u2019s approach to corporate electioneering makes a dramatic break from our past.\u00a0 Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.\u00a0 <\/em>The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. [Author\u2019s emphasis.]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not every politician, however, has been as critical. Presidential-hopeful Mitt Romney\u2014desperately shape-shifting in his effort to become the conservative cheerleader extraordinaire\u2014snidely remarked at a recent political rally that \u201ccorporations are people, my friend.\u201d He and other conservatives may be able to ignore the opinion of Professor-of-Law Obama but may not find it quite so easy to dismiss the opinion of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist\u2014himself an examplar of arch-conservatism. \u00a0In a show of exquisite linguistic clarity, Rehnquist warned that granting personhood to corporations and confusing corporate electioneering with the individual\u2019s First Amendment right to free speech was \u201cto confuse metaphor with reality.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to recent polling, a majority of Americans share Rehnquist\u2019s discomfort. In fact, a hearty 55% of us oppose granting corporations the same constitutional rights as individuals, showing that you don\u2019t need a constitutional law degree to understand the implications of this disastrous decision.<\/p>\n

The debasement of our political dialogue\u2014fueled by unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations to finance ad buys\u2014has been on view throughout the 2012 Republican primaries.\u00a0 Sadly, we can be certain that this cycle of political distortion is just an amuse-bouche when compared to the messy main course that\u2019s going to be thrown out on the table during the presidential-campaign brawl and the upcoming ugly fight for control of Congress.\u00a0 Fortunately, the backlash has begun, with opponents to the Citizens United<\/em> decision coalescing to mount a multi-front assault to limit the effects of the court\u2019s historic misjudgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Calls for a constitutional amendment<\/strong><\/p>\n The call for a constitutional amendment is emerging from places as far flung as the oval office, city councils, state legislatures, and state supreme courts. From New York to Los Angeles to Boulder, Pueblo, Duluth, Missoula, Oakland, Albany, Burlington, Portland, Oregon, and Portland, Maine, resolutions are being brought to the floor calling on congressional delegations to support an amendment to the Constitution to abolish corporate personhood and legally define the word persons <\/em>as human beings.<\/em><\/p>\n Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is one of those leading the charge. Sanders recently introduced a bill called the Saving America Democracy Amendment.\u00a0 It would establish that:<\/p>\n Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people<\/p>\n Corporations are subject to regulation by the people<\/p>\n Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures<\/p>\n Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Proponents of a constitutional amendment know that passage is a long-term goal\u2014with some predicting a ten-year battle\u2014that will not ameliorate in the short term the effects of the court\u2019s decision. They acknowledge that the bar was set intentionally high for passage of a constitutional amendment, guaranteeing that an amendment would have to meet criteria of national import and consensus. \u00a0\u00a0In order to gain passage, such an amendment would have to gain approval of two-thirds of Congress and then an affirmative vote from three-quarters of the states. (The last time an amendment was successful was in 1971 when the voting age was lowered from twenty-one to eighteen.) For short-term fixes, opponents are pursuing other avenues.<\/p>\n State laws, expansion of shareholders\u2019 rights, and the courts<\/strong><\/p>\n There is an effort afoot in states to pass legislation calling for setting disclosure requirements, disclaimers, and increased transparency. Another approach being discussed would remedy the issue of secrecy through revisions to corporate governance. That approach would expand the rights of shareholders to require management to inform investors of their intention to donate monies to political-action groups and to obtain prior approval before proceeding with campaign donations.<\/p>\n David Cobb, head of the Move to Amend<\/a> campaign, explains the nuts and bolts of the shareholder approach.<\/p>\n \u00a0A model version, introduced last year in Maryland, would prohibit a corporation from publishing or distributing campaign material in the state unless it is true and require approval from the board of directors who would decide whether such expenditures are in the best interests of the corporation. The law would also mandate stockholder approval of the content of campaign material and advertising expenditures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/strong>The fight is also being pursued in the courts. In December 2011 the Montana Supreme Court upheld Montana\u2019s Corrupt Practices Act, the state\u2019s century-old ban on corporate money in elections.\u00a0 This represents the first direct legal challenge to the Citizens United <\/em>decision.<\/p>\n Taking action now<\/strong><\/p>\n Two senatorial candidates, locked in a difficult and tight contest, are not waiting for long-term solutions. Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren have taken the matter into their own hands by publicly rejecting the support of super PACS. \u00a0Massachusetts voters should take great pride in this unexpected and, yes, courageous show of bipartisanship. \u00a0The two opponents call their agreement the People\u2019s Pledge.<\/p>\n Last week Brown and Warren laid down their challenge to each other in an announcement to their supporters:<\/p>\n \u00a0Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren are joining together to ask outside groups to stay out, and we\u2019re making it clear that they won\u2019t be helping their favored candidate if they get in.\u00a0 That\u2019s why we\u2019ve agreed to the People\u2019s Pledge.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s how it works:\u00a0 If an independent third party group spends money on TV, radio, or online supporting a candidate, that candidate has agreed to pay 50% of the cost of airing that ad to a charity of the other candidate\u2019s choice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For her part, Elizabeth Warren has acknowledged that she is uncertain whether this pledge will stick.\u00a0 However, for this disillusioned voter trying to make sense of the Supreme Court\u2019s frightening assault on our democracy, the fact that these two candidates are leading the way by openly acknowledging the problem and proposing even a flawed solution is grounds for optimism.<\/p>\n  <\/p>\n  <\/p>\n  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In this time of hyper-partisanship, blowback from the Supreme Court\u2019s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case is throwing some surprising bedfellows together from<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":14502,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[162,869,572,715,16,573],"tags":[398,1441],"yoast_head":"\n