WG/Strategies/End Corporate Personhood: Difference between revisions
m (1 revision) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| 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. | |||
== | == Introduction == | ||
==Points of Information== | 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. 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 = | |||
=== 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 == | |||
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. | |||
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]] | ||
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 = | |||
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. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Latest revision as of 22:20, 9 November 2011
Back to main [Issues] page, or back to Citizens_United_to_End_Political_Bribery page.
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.
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
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
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.
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: [1]]
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: [[2]] 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. [[3]]
Another recent and informative link
[[4]]
And there are two other organizations that we can partner with:
[[http://MovetoAmend.org http://MovetoAmend.org]]
and
[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.
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.