Madison, WI vs. Citizens United

[filkertom]

This didn't get anywhere near the play it deserves:

Voters in Madison, Wisconsin on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved, by an 84 percent majority, a city referendum calling for amending the U.S. Constitution to establish that “only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights.” In Dane County, Wisconsin, which includes the city of Madison, 78 percent voted for a similar county referendum, rejecting the rationale underlying the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited, and secret, corporate campaign spending.

These votes are the first referendums anywhere in the country against Citizens United, and calling for a constitutional amendment that would void the decision.

[...]

RESOLVED, the City of Madison, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:
1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and
2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.

Obviously no binding effect, but it's a start.

Comments

[wednes]

I agree with the state of Wisconsin?
This makes me feel all oogy.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's just that I'm taking Federal Courts this semester, but comparisons to Chisholm v. Georgia are inevitable. (And overblown.)

[antinomic.livejournal.com]

Sadly, most news out of the People's Republic of Madison is written off as 'Those wackos again. *headshake*'

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

MADTOWN ROCKS.

I know. I live here :D

[ogam.livejournal.com]

This needs to spread like wildfire.

[kengr]

Part 1 is overly broad. If corporations have *no* constitutional rights, then I have trouble seeing how they can sue or be sued, both of which are pretty much the entire reason that corporations were *invented*.

2 Is problematic if anybody tries to apply it as a general rule.

Political contributions *do* affect elections, since they are mostly used for advertising and campaigning, which most definitely *are* political speech.

[theturbonerd.livejournal.com]

An actual amendment would need MUCH better wording than their resolution. The problem isn't that Corporations have Constitutional rights. The real problem is that the courts have given them many of the same rights as people, under the original assumption that only people could own property, enter into contracts, engage in commerce, etc.

What the amendment should do is establish specifically what rights Corporations have and limit them to only those rights. We need to break the idea that corporations are artificial people. That concept is what is causing all the mischief and allows the courts to extend rights in bizarre ways as in the Citizen's United case.

Establishing that money is not speech will require even more careful wording. If not careful it could be twisted to allow censorship of writing, documentaries, and other forms of free speech.