Citizens United v. FEC and WA state’s I-1329

Money is not free speech and coperations are not people! Washington State’s I-1329 is a move to amend to limit the power of cooperations over U.S. politics. I haven't seen this posted yet and I thought you fine members of ATS would like to know about this initiative.

Never before in the history of the United States has our system been so openly corrupted by big money. Our democracy has been overtaken by corporate interests who have bought favor with politicians, putting up huge roadblocks to any legislation that benefits We The People. But all over the country, including Washington State, people are fighting back and demanding change.

Source; wamend.org

Here is a brief summary of the intent with a link to the full initiative below.

This act declares that the people of Washington State support amending the US Constitution to reduce the influence of money on elections and government policy. The amendment would overturn all U.S. Supreme Court decisions granting constitutional rights to corporations and other special interests, and would provide for regulation and disclosure of political contributions and spending, in order to ensure that no person or artificial legal entity gains undue influence over government as a result of money.

I-1329 WA

The words “Amend the constitution” are cause for concern and caution for me so I feel it is important to fully understand such an initiative as this and the motive behind it.
Here is an interesting video that was linked to the wamend site.

That video is over 52 minuets long, if you don’t have the time please watch the last part.



Amend the US Constitution to overturn a US Supreme Court decision? How many times has this been done in US history?

It is our duty as citizens to defend against the corruption of our democracy, and to clarify the intent of our Constitution when the U.S. Supreme Court makes errors of interpretation. We have used Constitutional amendments to correct Supreme Court decisions seven times in our history as a nation. It is urgent that we do so once more. Sixteen states have passed resolutions, issued letters or passed initiatives calling on Congress to address the undue influence of corporations and the wealthy in our political systems. Sixteen Washington cities and counties have passed resolutions urging Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution specifically clarifying that "money is not speech" and "corporations are not persons.”It is time for Washington State to join them.

Here is a delightful, partly-animated, 8-minute video that quickly overviews the problem of money in politics and power that corporations exercise in our democracy (Not sure how to embed that video).

So what do you think, ATS? A move in the right direction, doomed to fail? Perhaps hope for a non-violent revolution and a positive change for the United States?

well; first off you have to convince congress. which is corrupt, that this would be a worthwhile thing to vote on, to ignore partisan nonsense and actually focus on this issue.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

There is an easy way to fix that. Send the congress members many letters stating that if they don't vote to pass this, that they will NOT be in their position much longer.

a reply to: Devino

If we are truly talking about amending the constitution then caution is right, but Money is not free speech and corporations are not people. Courts have failed, lawyers have failed, the people have failed, it is time to write it into the constitution to make it clear where the people stand on this issue. There is no logical reason for corporations to claim person-hood other than to grant them all kinds of legal powers and protections that should only be reserved for human beings. Money as speech is a result of person-hood. They are not human beings, they are artificial legal entities and it is time to crack down on their corruption, bad business practices and harm committed onto human beings. They have abused their limited liability protections beyond conscience and they must pay for their transgressions by forcing better behavior.

originally posted by: Devino

Amend the US Constitution to overturn a US Supreme Court decision? How many times has this been done in US history?

Actually I can think of one time off the top of my head:

The 24th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

It overturned the SCOUS ruling in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles. Which upheld a lot of the Jim Crow laws, such as the "Poll Tax" for voting.

a reply to: th3dudeabides

If we are truly talking about amending the constitution then caution is right,

That is why I feel it is important to understand the intention behind such an initiative and those that are supporting it. That is also why I posted it here, I trust someone will point it out any problems with I-1329.

There is an issue of liability at stake that needs to be addressed. If you have a company that makes a product, and that product malfunctions, who is liable. As the law is written, only people are liable. You wouldn't wanna have to pay off for injuries and or deaths your product causes. Blame the company. But to blame the company as an entity you have to recognize it like a person. Soo... Every person can campaign in the way he or she sees fit to his or her ability to campaign. A crazy person can sit on a corner telling people that this nominee is the antichrist. A rich man can give his favorite nominee some money. Now with the new Supreme Court decision the means have no limit. That's where we are. Solve the liability issue and you can solve the campaign contribution issue

a reply to: Sillyosaurus
Personally I've always thought there's a pretty obvious distinction that can be made between natural persons and legal persons - all natural persons are legal, but not all legal persons are natural.

companies & other legal persons cannot vote, cannot hold office, etc., and are (or should be) persons solely for the liability and other legal issues you mention - not for anything else.

It will come down to this or this countrys citizens will grab our guns and march on the worthless government