Talk:WG/Strategies/End Corporate Personhood

Concern

 * user:StargazerA Oct 14, 2011 1:59 pm

I am concerned about removing from corporations not only freedom of political spending but also the protection of members afforded by corporate personhood. It will enable those with the resources to sue individuals, i.e. the 1%, to dominate and further consolidate their power and influence, while undermining groups like the ACLU, labor unions, EFF and independent entrepreneurs that can protect the rights of workers against well-funded interests. It is unclear to me that the total consequences of the abolition of corporate personhood, particularly with regards to international relations and trade, have been explored. I would much prefer to focus on repealing Citizens United and corporations' special treatment under the law. Tax their income, stop corporate welfare, uncap damage awards against oil companies, and we can continue to allow workers to unite together to protect their interests as well.

re: Concern

 * user:informantzero Oct 15, 2011 9:01 am

The language of proposed amendment H J Res 78 is concerned very specifically with the regulation of election funds. While it may not seem an extreme measure, the possibility of moving it forward is increased by the fact that it is not eliminating altogether "corporate personhood", i.e. it does not interfere with the primary reason it exists in the first place--liability protection. Many Small Business entrepreneurs, which are members of the 99%, that are not corrupting politics as incorporated "persons" are very concerned with preserving the liability status of corporate personhood. An honest, good faith accident, or unpredictable series of events, should not financially ruin a family for generations to come, but it may make the business entity liable to recompense. Without this liability protection, many entrepreneurs would not put their personal estates at risk, no matter how small or large, for a progressive idea. Creative, progressive entrepreneurship should not be stifled. "End Corporate Personhood" is not an accurate heading for the position I've been advocating. Lawfully recognizing the differences in constitutional protection of people (flesh, blood and brains) and corporate persons (abstractions signified by pieces of paper)is more to the point. Taxing, Labor Unions, and International Trade are all the subject of other conversation threads.

re: Concern

 * user:reyraton Oct 16, 2011 3:28 am

Revocation ought to be limited to free speech, or include an explicit extension of 4th and 14th Amendments - due process and equal protection.

re: Concern ..... Constitution Corporate Person hood

 * user:bdkg Thursday, 9:05 am

It is the constitutional protections that concern me most. If it were merely subject to statue law and regulation, it would hopefully be enough to protect us from negative aspects of Constitution Corporate Person hood

re: Concern

 * user:jobelenus Yesterday 2:48 pm

AFAIK there are three groups right now going after Constitutional Amendments...

1) Larry Lessig, Law Prof at Harvard and Stanford, search #rootstrikers 2) Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC #getmoneyout 3) Young Turks now of Current.com


 * 1) 3 is the only one that has proposed language as of yet: http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/blog/93502135_cenk-uygur-creates-pac-proposes-constitutional-ban-on-corporate-political-donations.htm

http://www.getmoneyout.com/
 * 1) 1 and 2 have added language as a proposal to ammend the constitution:

From our former Washington Lobbyist, Jimmy Williams, here is a DRAFT of our Constitutional Amendment for public debate this fall:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

Here is Lawrence Lessig's DRAFT of the amendment. As always we would like your comments for debate.

"No non-citizen shall contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office. United States citizens shall be free to contribute no more than the equivalent of $100 to any federal candidate during any election cycle. Notwithstanding the limits construed to be part of the First Amendment, Congress shall have the power to limit, but not ban, independent political expenditures, so long as such limits are content and viewpoint neutral. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

Vote Buddy Roemer for President

 * user:Stewart76 Oct 16, 2011 11:14 pm

He is the only republican candidate running for the presidential nomination talking about this issue AND the only one who has refused to take PAC money. As such he doesn't have enough support/backing to be included in the debates and gets far less media attention.

Register republican (even if the thought makes you throw up a little bit in your mouth) and vote for (or write in) Buddy Roemer. If this movement can give him a little bump, maybe he can get into the national debate and take this issue with him.

Temperature check & solidarity inquiries

 * user:informantzero Oct 13, 2011 9:55 am

Take a temperature check at a GA asking how well informed the group is on this topic. Making reference material available in print on site for distribution to the group and visitors to encourage conversation.

Take another temperature check at a later date making sure that the subject is not divisive to the group.

Open a dialogue with other Occupy sites making sure that any action in this direction will not be divisive to the larger movement.

These suggestions and concerns apply to any SPP topic.