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, 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. | ||
== 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. | |||
== Proposal == | == 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." | |||
== 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. | |||
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. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 12:14, 6 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.
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."
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.