WG/Strategies/End Corporate Personhood - Revision history

Pcovery at 03:20, 10 November 2011

2011-11-10T03:20:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 9 November 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:
	(We'll leave notice there if we move the meeting somewhere else.)		(We'll leave notice there if we move the meeting somewhere else.)

	== Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision ==		= Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision =

	As money has been a corrupting force in our democracy, and disproportionately favors the desires of the few over the needs of the many, Occupy Boston supports the "Constitutional Amendment to Reform Campaign Finance" introduced in the Senate last week allowing Congress and the states to limit money in politics.		=== As money has been a corrupting force in our democracy, and disproportionately favors the desires of the few over the needs of the many, Occupy Boston supports the "Constitutional Amendment to Reform Campaign Finance" introduced in the Senate last week allowing Congress and the states to limit money in politics. ===

	(This bill counteracts the January 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that established unlimited campaign contributions as corporate "free speech.")		(This bill counteracts the January 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that established unlimited campaign contributions as corporate "free speech.")

Pcovery at 02:50, 10 November 2011

2011-11-10T02:50:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 9 November 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==

	This page collects information and discussion about limiting corporate activity in politics. The whole concept of corporate personhood travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.		This page collects information and discussion about limiting corporate activity in politics. The whole concept of corporate personhood travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.

	The first proposal developed is to support a bill currently moving through Congress to limit corporate donations to campaigns and thus undo the Supreme Court ruling for "Citizens United."   An Open Discussion to consider this proposal (below) will be held this Saturday, Nov. 12 at 3:30, in front of the library.  (We'll leave notice there if we move the meeting somewhere else.)  ~~All are welcome to come and discuss this!~~		The first proposal developed is to support a bill currently moving through Congress to limit corporate donations to campaigns and thus undo the Supreme Court ruling for "Citizens United."

			=== An Open Discussion to consider this proposal (below) will be held this Saturday, Nov. 12 at 3:30, in front of the library.  All are invited to come and discuss this move to take back our democracy! ===

			(We'll leave notice there if we move the meeting somewhere else.)

	== Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision ==		== Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision ==

Pcovery at 02:47, 10 November 2011

2011-11-10T02:47:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 9 November 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==

	This page collects information and discussion about limiting corporate activity in politics. The whole concept of corporate personhood travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.		This page collects information and discussion about limiting corporate activity in politics. The whole concept of corporate personhood travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.

			The first proposal developed is to support a bill currently moving through Congress to limit corporate donations to campaigns and thus undo the Supreme Court ruling for "Citizens United."   An Open Discussion to consider this proposal (below) will be held this Saturday, Nov. 12 at 3:30, in front of the library.  (We'll leave notice there if we move the meeting somewhere else.)  All are welcome to come and discuss this!

	== Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision ==		== Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision ==

Pcovery at 02:42, 10 November 2011

2011-11-10T02:42:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 9 November 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	== Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision ==		== Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision ==

	Occupy Boston ~~should support a US~~ Constitutional Amendment ~~that is currently being proposed~~ in Congress to ~~counteract~~ the January 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that established unlimited campaign contributions as ~~their~~ "free speech."		As money has been a corrupting force in our democracy, and disproportionately favors the desires of the few over the needs of the many, Occupy Boston supports the "Constitutional Amendment to Reform Campaign Finance" introduced in the Senate last week allowing Congress and the states to limit money in politics.

			(This bill counteracts the January 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that established unlimited campaign contributions as corporate "free speech.")

	== Points of Information ==		== Points of Information ==

OneKarma: moved SPP End Corporate Personhood to WG/Strategies/End Corporate Personhood

2011-11-09T22:50:25Z

moved SPP End Corporate Personhood to WG/Strategies/End Corporate Personhood

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:50, 9 November 2011
(No difference)

Pcovery at 17:14, 6 November 2011

2011-11-06T17:14:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:14, 6 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Back to main [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Strategies,_Proposals,_Positions Issues]] page, or back to [http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Citizens_United_to_End_Political_Bribery Citizens_United_to_End_Political_Bribery] page.		Back to main [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Strategies,_Proposals,_Positions Issues]] page, or back to [http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Citizens_United_to_End_Political_Bribery Citizens_United_to_End_Political_Bribery] page.

	Use the Discussion tab for this page to discuss the proposed goal of reversing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision establishing free speech for corporations, through unlimited campaign contributions. Place reference information on this topic here on the Page tab. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions\|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.		== Introduction ==

	~~TF: but it's not just Citizens United~~. ~~It's the~~ whole concept of personhood ~~that~~ travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.		This page collects information and discussion about limiting corporate activity in politics. The whole concept of corporate personhood travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.

	== Proposal ==		== Proposal to oppose Citizens United decision ==

	~~Everyone, some directly and some indirectly,~~ is ~~here to~~ to be heard because traditional channels of representation are overruled by big business' money in politics. Many of the symptoms voiced are the result of this intrusion. An official stance for overturning the January 2010 ~~SJC decision in~~ Citizens United ~~v. Federal Election Commission is an effective starting point~~ that ~~should satisfy just about everyone. There are people directly behind this position and it would be a major accomplishment simply to get politicians talking seriously about it~~ as ~~we approach an election year~~.		Occupy Boston should support a US Constitutional Amendment that is currently being proposed in Congress to counteract the January 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that established unlimited campaign contributions as their "free speech."

	== Points of Information ==		== Points of Information ==
			An existing group for reform of the "Citizens United" decision will meet at 7:00 on Thursday, Nov. 17 at the Arlington St. Church at the corner of Boylston.

	~~This would probably require a Constitutional Amendment.~~ Corporate personhood is a result of case law and the United States Code; re-written legislation might be over-turned. The Wikipedia page is a decent history to the subject: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]]		Corporate personhood is a result of case law and the United States Code; re-written legislation might be over-turned, so a Constitutional amendment is probably required. The Wikipedia page is a decent history to the subject: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]]

	Within days of the Citizens United decision, Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland called for an Amendment to fix this, followed by our own Senator John Kerry: [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/john-kerry-amend-the-cons_n_445842.html]] Donna Edwards seems to have language ready for an Amendment. Here's a link to an article, dated October 4th 2011, with an brief bit of interview with Donna Edwards discussing the Amendment. [[http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22986]]		Within days of the Citizens United decision, Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland called for an Amendment to fix this, followed by our own Senator John Kerry: [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/john-kerry-amend-the-cons_n_445842.html]] Donna Edwards seems to have language ready for an Amendment. Here's a link to an article, dated October 4th 2011, with an brief bit of interview with Donna Edwards discussing the Amendment. [[http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22986]]
Line 23:		Line 24:
	Please put most concerns and questions into the Discussion tab, and only summarize items here when they are clear, short and serious.		Please put most concerns and questions into the Discussion tab, and only summarize items here when they are clear, short and serious.

	~~----~~		= Supporting Statements =
			Everyone, some directly and some indirectly, is here to to be heard because traditional channels of representation are overruled by big business' money in politics. Many of the symptoms voiced are the result of this intrusion. An official stance for overturning the January 2010 SJC decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an effective starting point that should satisfy just about everyone. There are people directly behind this position and it would be a major accomplishment simply to get politicians talking seriously about it as we approach an election year.

	~~= Proposal =~~

	'''No public money for private lobbying.''' A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against them. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress. - Matt Taibi in [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012 My Advice to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters],

	----		----

	~~''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/SPP+End+Corporate+Personhood SPP End Corporate Personhood at wikispaces]''~~

Pcovery at 12:56, 3 November 2011

2011-11-03T12:56:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:56, 3 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Back to main [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Strategies,_Proposals,_Positions Issues]] page.		Back to main [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Strategies,_Proposals,_Positions Issues]] page, or back to [http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Citizens_United_to_End_Political_Bribery Citizens_United_to_End_Political_Bribery] page.

	Use the Discussion tab for this page to discuss the proposed goal of reversing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision establishing free speech for corporations, through unlimited campaign contributions. Place reference information on this topic here on the Page tab. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions\|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.		Use the Discussion tab for this page to discuss the proposed goal of reversing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision establishing free speech for corporations, through unlimited campaign contributions. Place reference information on this topic here on the Page tab. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions\|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.
Line 5:		Line 5:
	TF: but it's not just Citizens United. It's the whole concept of personhood that travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.		TF: but it's not just Citizens United. It's the whole concept of personhood that travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.

	==Proposal==		== Proposal ==

	Everyone, some directly and some indirectly, is here to to be heard because traditional channels of representation are overruled by big business' money in politics. Many of the symptoms voiced are the result of this intrusion. An official stance for overturning the January 2010 SJC decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an effective starting point that should satisfy just about everyone. There are people directly behind this position and it would be a major accomplishment simply to get politicians talking seriously about it as we approach an election year.		Everyone, some directly and some indirectly, is here to to be heard because traditional channels of representation are overruled by big business' money in politics. Many of the symptoms voiced are the result of this intrusion. An official stance for overturning the January 2010 SJC decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an effective starting point that should satisfy just about everyone. There are people directly behind this position and it would be a major accomplishment simply to get politicians talking seriously about it as we approach an election year.
	==Points of Information==
			== Points of Information ==

	This would probably require a Constitutional Amendment. Corporate personhood is a result of case law and the United States Code; re-written legislation might be over-turned. The Wikipedia page is a decent history to the subject: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]]		This would probably require a Constitutional Amendment. Corporate personhood is a result of case law and the United States Code; re-written legislation might be over-turned. The Wikipedia page is a decent history to the subject: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]]

	Within days of the Citizens United decision, Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland called for an Amendment to fix this, followed by our own Senator John Kerry: [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/john-kerry-amend-the-cons_n_445842.html]] Donna Edwards seems to have language ready for an Amendment. Here's a link to an article, dated October 4th 2011, with an brief bit of interview with Donna Edwards discussing the Amendment. [[http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22986]]		Within days of the Citizens United decision, Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland called for an Amendment to fix this, followed by our own Senator John Kerry: [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/john-kerry-amend-the-cons_n_445842.html]] Donna Edwards seems to have language ready for an Amendment. Here's a link to an article, dated October 4th 2011, with an brief bit of interview with Donna Edwards discussing the Amendment. [[http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22986]]

	Another recent and informative link<br>		Another recent and informative link<br/>[[http://inthesetimes.com/article/11937/corporations_are_not_people]]
	[[http://inthesetimes.com/article/11937/corporations_are_not_people]]
			And there are two other organizations that we can partner with:<br/>[[http://movetoamend.org/ [http://MovetoAmend.org] [http://MovetoAmend.org http://MovetoAmend.org]]]<br/>and<br/>[http://freespeechforpeople.org/ [http://freespeechforpeople.org] [http://freespeechforpeople.org http://freespeechforpeople.org]]]

			= Serious Concerns =

	~~And there~~ are ~~two other organizations that we can partner with:<br>~~		Please put most concerns and questions into the Discussion tab, and only summarize items here when they are clear, short and serious.
	~~[[http://movetoamend.org/ [http://MovetoAmend.org] http://MovetoAmend.org]]<br>~~
	and~~<br>~~
	~~[http://freespeechforpeople.org/ [http://freespeechforpeople.org] http://freespeechforpeople~~.~~org]]~~

	~~=Serious Concerns=~~
	~~Please put most concerns and questions into the Discussion tab, and only summarize items here when they are clear, short and serious.<br>~~
	----		----
	=Proposal=
			= Proposal =

	'''No public money for private lobbying.''' A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against them. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress. - Matt Taibi in [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012 My Advice to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters],		'''No public money for private lobbying.''' A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against them. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress. - Matt Taibi in [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012 My Advice to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters],
	----~~---~~
			----

	''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/SPP+End+Corporate+Personhood SPP End Corporate Personhood at wikispaces]''		''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/SPP+End+Corporate+Personhood SPP End Corporate Personhood at wikispaces]''

Terra at 05:11, 31 October 2011

2011-10-31T05:11:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 31 October 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Back to main [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Strategies,_Proposals,_Positions Issues]] page.

	Use the Discussion tab for this page to discuss the proposed goal of reversing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision establishing free speech for corporations, through unlimited campaign contributions. Place reference information on this topic here on the Page tab. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions\|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.		Use the Discussion tab for this page to discuss the proposed goal of reversing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision establishing free speech for corporations, through unlimited campaign contributions. Place reference information on this topic here on the Page tab. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions\|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

			TF: but it's not just Citizens United. It's the whole concept of personhood that travels through constitutional law impacting our ability to protect water, etc.

	==Proposal==		==Proposal==

Matt: 1 revision

2011-10-23T15:40:06Z

1 revision

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:40, 23 October 2011
(No difference)

Matt at 01:01, 19 October 2011

2011-10-19T01:01:00Z

New page

Use the Discussion tab for this page to discuss the proposed goal of reversing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision establishing free speech for corporations, through unlimited campaign contributions. Place reference information on this topic here on the Page tab. To find another topic, return to the [[Strategies, Proposals, Positions|Strategies, Proposals, Positions]] page.

==Proposal==
Everyone, some directly and some indirectly, is here to to be heard because traditional channels of representation are overruled by big business' money in politics. Many of the symptoms voiced are the result of this intrusion. An official stance for overturning the January 2010 SJC decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an effective starting point that should satisfy just about everyone. There are people directly behind this position and it would be a major accomplishment simply to get politicians talking seriously about it as we approach an election year.
==Points of Information==
This would probably require a Constitutional Amendment. Corporate personhood is a result of case law and the United States Code; re-written legislation might be over-turned. The Wikipedia page is a decent history to the subject: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]]

Within days of the Citizens United decision, Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland called for an Amendment to fix this, followed by our own Senator John Kerry: [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/john-kerry-amend-the-cons_n_445842.html]] Donna Edwards seems to have language ready for an Amendment. Here's a link to an article, dated October 4th 2011, with an brief bit of interview with Donna Edwards discussing the Amendment. [[http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22986]]

Another recent and informative link 
[[http://inthesetimes.com/article/11937/corporations_are_not_people]]

And there are two other organizations that we can partner with: 
[[http://movetoamend.org/ [http://MovetoAmend.org] http://MovetoAmend.org]] 
and 
[http://freespeechforpeople.org/ [http://freespeechforpeople.org] http://freespeechforpeople.org]]

=Serious Concerns=
Please put most concerns and questions into the Discussion tab, and only summarize items here when they are clear, short and serious. 
----
=Proposal=
'''No public money for private lobbying.''' A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against them. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress. - Matt Taibi in [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012 My Advice to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters],
-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/SPP+End+Corporate+Personhood SPP End Corporate Personhood at wikispaces]''