WG/Strategies/End Corporate Personhood: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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 = | |||
Please put most concerns and questions into the Discussion tab, and only summarize items here when they are clear, short and serious. | |||
and | |||
---- | ---- | ||
=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]'' | ||
Revision as of 07:56, 3 November 2011
Back to main [Issues] page, or back to 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 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
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: [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.
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 My Advice to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters,