The 99% Declaration » 2. Overturning of the “Citizens United” Case

- Video Chat
- Like This Page
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Back to Top
- Settings

##

# 2. Overturning of the “Citizens United” Case

Grievances Add comments
Dec 082011

Overturning the “Citizens United” Case. The immediate abrogation, even if it requires a Constitutional Amendment, of the outrageous and anti-democratic Supreme Court holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and its progeny. This heinous decision proclaimed in 2010, equates the direct and indirect payment of money to politicians by political action committees, corporations, wealthy individuals and unions with the exercise of protected free speech. We, the 99% of the American People are outraged and demand that this judicially sanctioned bribery of politicians be reversed and never be deemed protected free speech again.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth. -Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union address (December 2, 1902).

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
please wait...
Rating: 9.1/10 (27 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: +26 (from 26 votes)
2. Overturning of the “Citizens United” Case, 9.1 out of 10 based on 27 ratings

- Post to Facebook
- Post to Twitter
- Add to LinkedIn
- Post to Delicious
- Post to StumbleUpon
- Send via Gmail
- Send via E-mail program
- Print with PrintFriendly
- Add to Tumblr

Get Shareaholic for Firefox
0

### 33 Responses to “2. Overturning of the “Citizens United” Case”

1. flaja says:
   2012/01/30 at 8:10 pm

   If you regulate corporations that have a lot of money and tell them to stay out of politics because you don’t their money influencing elections, what do you do about individual persons who also have a lot of money? If you tell a rich company like IBM that it cannot spend its money to influence an election, do you also tell a rich man like George Soros that he cannot spend money to influence an election? Where would your regulating end?

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
2. flaja says:
   2012/01/30 at 8:04 pm

   If we give the government the power to regulate financial contributions to candidates for public office or tell organizations how they can spend money on political campaigns, what would keep incumbent office holders from imposing regulations on candidates that wish to challenge them or tell organizations that do not suport them (the incumbents) to shut up? I agree that there is too much money in politics, but think about the implications of what you are proposing.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
3. bogotabro says:
   2012/01/19 at 4:11 am

   I cannot stress enough the points others have made here, that there are several SCOTUS decisions in play here, that have necessitated the need for extensive campaign finance reform to reverse the degree of corruption that has manifested itself by these democracy-killing rulings. Carol referred to several cases just under the Roberts court. Steve Wright pointed out the two main factors: corporate personhood, and money as free speech. This goes all the way back to the 1976 ruling in “Buckley v Valeo” which limited campaign contributions but deemed money constitutionally-protected “free speech.” Now there are no limits, corporations are people, and they can “speak” as much as they want.

   It is my strong opinion that this grievance should be re-worded to not just focus on the Citizens United case. If corporate personhood is overruled, there can still be super-wealthy individuals and unincorporated non-profits spending unlimited amounts of money to influence elections to their liking. A constitutional amendment such as Senator Sanders is proposing is what is needed to address all of these issues.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - mikejaskula says:
     2012/02/05 at 11:04 pm

     It seems to me that one goal of the movement is to eliminate private money from the electoral process (suggested grievance #1). The way to achieve the goal is to, among other things, find a way around Citizens United (suggested grievance #2). So once the delegates get to work on the petition, I hope they will make this sort of distinction in order to make the petition as brief and hard hitting as possible by not getting lost in the weeds of what steps need to be taken in order to attain the goal. So in this case, #2 would not even included in the petition because in order to achieve #1, #2 has to happen.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
4. nitewatchman says:
   2012/01/15 at 12:05 am

   I totally agree. What was the supreme court thinking when they made their ruling on the citizens united case? Super PAC’s? Really? Money is not free speech. And having Super PAC’s with donors that can be totally anonymous means that foreign powers can anonymously influence American politics. Now if that isn’t a National Security issue, I don’t know what is. Potentially, an enemy of The United States could spend tons of money in political ads backing or trashing candidates. Not smart!

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - patrick says:
     2012/01/15 at 2:08 pm

     I agree nitewatchman.

     If true, if foreign powers can anonymously pour unlimited amounts of money into Super PAC’s, who can then pour unlimited amounts of money into influencing our democracy, then we have an immense CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to our nation.

     The Supreme Courts January 2010 Citizens United decision needs to be overturned immediately, via an ammendment to the USA Constitution if necessary.

     We need to take all money out of our elections, whether corporate, union, pac, super pac. The first grievence here speaks of public funding of elections.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
     Log in to Reply
5. peedropaula54 says:
   2012/01/13 at 7:30 pm

   It’s bad enough that individuals are able to buy their way into office, but I don’t want to live in a country where the Chamber of Commerce calls the shots.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
   Log in to Reply
6. rustyhoundog says:
   2012/01/09 at 7:31 pm

   “He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.”

   That is the lamest excuse to empower corporate hubris I have seen lately. There has long been precedent that distinguishes news media and other corporations. Needless to say, the independent publisher is very easily distinguished.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
   Log in to Reply
7. lizell says:
   2012/01/07 at 1:38 pm

   So I read the Case, and the Opinion of the Court, on Citizens United vs. FEC. What part do we not agree with. Honest question.

   Opinion of the Court
   Justice Kennedy, the author of the Court’s opinion.

   The majority opinion,[19] authored by Justice Kennedy, found that 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)’s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary: The Movie. Kennedy wrote: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had previously held that a Michigan campaign finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld BCRA’s extension of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures to include “electioneering communications”.

   The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311 (provisions requiring disclosure of the funder) were valid as applied to the ads for Clinton and to the movie itself.[19]
   [edit] Concurrences

   Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Alito joined, wrote separately “to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case”.[20]

   Chief Justice Roberts wrote to further explicate and defend the court’s statement that “there is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication”. The Chief Justice argued that there are times during which overruling prior decisions is necessary. Had the courts never gone against stare decisis, “segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants”. Roberts’ concurrence recited a plethora of case law in which the court had ruled against precedent. Ultimately, however, Roberts argued, “Stare decisis is a doctrine of preservation, not transformation. It counsels deference to past mistakes, but provides no justification for making new ones.”[20]

   Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, but also wrote a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Alito in full and by Justice Thomas in part. Scalia addressed Justice Stevens’s dissent, specifically with regard to the notion that the court’s decision was not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. Scalia stated that Stevens dissent was “in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why ‘the freedom of speech’ that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.” He further considered the dissent’s exploration of the Framers’ views about the “role of corporations in society” to be misleading, and even if valid, irrelevant to the text. Scalia principally argued that the First Amendment was written in “terms of speech, not speakers” and that “Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.”[21]

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
   - lizell says:
     2012/01/07 at 1:45 pm

     I found it – that last paragraph – the difference between viewing the First Amendment in its original text, which places corporations and persons in different roles, or viewing the First Amendment in the language of today, which places persons and corporations “in terms of speakers, not persons” – etc.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
   - zarepheth says:
     2012/01/08 at 1:35 am

     I see a few problems with allowing corporations to participate in the political process. First, corporations can accumulate so much wealth and power that their voice overrides that of individuals citizens, to the point that even thousands of citizens, who are not a corporation but are otherwise working together, have their voice ignored because of the corporation. Second, corporations are controlled by a few people at the top, sometimes just one person, yet they have the wealth and power of all their shareholders, employees, and some of their customers and suppliers behind them — even when those providing the wealth and power disagreee with the corporate leadership, the corporation can still use their wealth and power against them. Third, corporations are often owned and controlled by people outside of our own country. Non-citizens have no legitimate right to influence our politics.

     That second point is probably the most important. I am an employee of a large corporation, part of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex. My labor supports the corporation, yet I’m quite sure that the leadership of the corporation is more interested in supporting the 1% at the top rather than the other 99%. I have no doubt that the corporation sends lobbyists to promote laws, regulations, and such that are not in my best interests. To remove my support for the corporation and other corporations like it, would probably put me into bankruptcy and living on the streets or in my mother’s basement – not really where I want to be in life.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
     Log in to Reply
8. John B Brown says:
   2011/12/19 at 9:05 am

   How about this as wording for a proper amendment to reverse the corporatization of the US.

   “The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

   ARTICLE 28

   Section 1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by operation of law are not persons, and do not have the rights of people.

   Section 2. No entity not a person, and no people other than citizens, shall contribute to any political purpose. All contributions to political purpose shall be made public, with the name of the contributor and amount and nature of the contribution, and the name of the recipient.

   Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.”

   VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
9. Dan Long says:
   2011/12/19 at 4:32 am

   I would not waste one second of time in search of abrogation. I would go straight for the jugular, and call for a constitutional convention. There are surely more issues than this one that need to be dealt with once it is convened.

   VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - Mark Greene says:
     2011/12/19 at 9:29 am

     Agree that “abrogation” is a waste of time. While I accept a Constitutional Convention as a valid last resort, I believe it is incumbent on us to generate as a point of our declaration the wording of a Constitutional Amendment which (a) reverses the deleterious consequences of the Citizens United ruling, and (b) prevents the courts from ever again repeating such a travesty.

     Further, we impugn our own credibility when we suggest that there is any route outside of Constitutional Amendment to deal with this. There isn’t.

     VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
     - Mark Greene says:
       2011/12/19 at 9:32 am

       Keep in mind that there is indeed much danger in a Constitutional Convention, due to its unprecedented nature, the lack of guidelines or limitations on what might be considered. While one is infinitely preferable to the status quo, in my view, a measured and predictable retreat from the brink would be preferable, if achievable…

       VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
       Log in to Reply
   - blake says:
     2012/01/04 at 8:17 pm

     I agree with Dan, the last time a Constitutional Convention was threaten for the 17 amendment the direct elections of senators the congress back down. They feared that once it was started they would loose control of it. This fear still exist. For good reason once a Constitutional Convention is called any and all amendments can be voted on. All the things the congress has been blocking for years would finally get action. More importantly the Supreme Court would have to sit on the side lines.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
     Log in to Reply
     - zarepheth says:
       2012/01/04 at 8:49 pm

       As I understand it, the current constitution of the United States came out of constitutional convention (or the equivalent) which met to make some minor changes to the original documents. Basically, the United States went from a loose confederation to a republic with a much stronger central government. Supposedly, that was not the original intent of the convention.

       So there is some valid concerns about doing another constitutional convention – concerns on both sides of the fence. What happens if the 1% sneak in their own delegates (and they will)? How do we prevent massive, misleading media campaigns from sidetracking the convention into encoding that corporations are people and have more rights than actual human beings? The other side of the fence is obviously worried about the opposite – like the 99% succeeding at fixing our government, economy, justice system and so forth to benefit almost everyone except the 1% who will lose their privileged positions and possibly wealth.

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
       Log in to Reply
       - blake says:
         2012/01/05 at 12:10 am

         I understand the fear of losing control over a constitutional convention. It is this fear which is gives it its power. The agents of 1% (politician, media people, lobbyist, etc.) will stop at nothing to prevent a constitutional convention form happening. We have four courses action open to us now:

         1) Do nothing. Nothing will change.
         2) Pass a new law. Which the Supreme Court will overturn.
         3) Pass a Constitutional Amendment. This requires a two third vote of both houses the congress, three quarts of the state legislators to ratify, and all of this to happen within seven years.
         4) Constitutional Convention. No one has any control.

         They all have their draw backs, but the 1% is just as afraid of a constitutional convention as anyone else is. If one was called the 1% would either compromise to avoid the convention, as they did for the 17 amendment, or they will be forced fight for their point of view in public. As far removing the 1% influence at a constitutional convention it’s not as big a problem as trying to their influence from the current congress. We will have to take on the 1% influence no matter which course we choose. A constitutional convention would side line both the Congress and the Supreme Court. Sometimes it just easier to start by removing pieces from the play field and reducing the game to its essential components.

         It’s my understanding that the delegates of a constitutional convention are chosen by the state legislators. As scary as that may sound.

         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         please wait...
         Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
         Log in to Reply
         - zarepheth says:
           2012/01/05 at 12:17 am

           You have a good point – no one would be in control, we could end up with anything from a better government and society for everyone to a minority ruling everyone else through religion (pick one…), technology, wealth (sort of what we already have), a monarchy, or something else …

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
         - zarepheth says:
           2012/01/05 at 12:19 am

           And starting over from scratch might be easier than trying to modify 200 years worth of state and federal law, a constitution, and convincing the existing rulers that they should make those changes when they have conflicting interests to do the opposite.

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
         - rustyhoundog says:
           2012/01/05 at 3:54 pm

           There is no time limit in the constitution for approving amendments. The 27th amendment was proposed as the second of twelve amendments, of which the third to twelfth were adopted in the late 18th century as the Bill of Rights, and second in the late twentieth century as the twenty-seventh amendment. See Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). To whit; any proposed amendment which has been submitted to the states for ratification and does not specify a ratification deadline may be ratified by the states at any time.

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   - mspollok says:
     2012/01/12 at 9:42 pm

     Be careful what you wish for. You open that can of worms this country will be even more unrecognizable than it already is.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
10. John B. Brown says:
    2011/12/16 at 1:51 pm

    Here is one amendment, and emending of the TYT-WolfPAC offering. It’s a start.
    [http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&action=display&thread=83]

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
11. Patrick Molen says:
    2011/12/15 at 10:24 pm

    The Supreme Courts Citizens United decision is the primary reason I am getting involved in this http://www.the99declaration.org movement.

    Big money in our democracy has always been a problem.
    I believe this problem was taken to a new poisonous sick level by the Supreme Courts ruling that equates the payment of money to politicians by corporations, wealthy individuals and unions with the exercise of protected free speech. We must do away with this erroneous ruling, if necessary, by Constitutional Amendment.

    But lets not stop there. Now that the Supreme Court’s aggressive overreach has made crystal clear the precariousness of our democracy, we must go further and find a viable way for our representatives to run for office without having to grovel and beg for ever higher and higher astronomical sums of campaign contributions. I believe the first four grievences listed on this website would take us closer to such a goal.

    I believe both the Republican and Democratic parties have SOLD our Democracy to the HIGHEST BIDDER and are merely representatives of the domestic and foreign elite 0.1%. (see book by Jacob Hacker: Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned its Back on the Middle Class).

    Both parties have become too comfortable and have taken the American people for granted. The American people deserve true representation. It is therefore high time that we shake things up in Washington DC with a viable third party.

    ps:

    Someone on one of the Occupy sites posted a few examples of direct and indirect foreign influences on our corporations/unions etc.

    I am pasting here the examples provided as I believe it captures the dangers of the Supreme Courts ruling from another very important but seldom discussed vantage point.

    ……………………from one of the occupy sites………………………………

    Two examples of indirect and direct foreign shareholder influences on our Corporations. Two examples of why the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling presents a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR DEMOCRACY.

    #1)

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/aeaf55dc-d5b1-11dc-8b56-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1gf7oL8VK

    Financial Times
    CIC close to fund deal with JC Flowers
    By Henny Sender in New York
    Published: February 8 2008

    China Investment Corporation, the Chinese sovereign wealth fund, is close to an agreement with JC Flowers, the US private equity group, to put about $4bn into a new fund to invest in ailing financial institutions.
    The move follows blockbuster transactions in which sovereign wealth funds from Asia and the Middle East have invested directly in beleaguered banks such asUBS, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
    The tie-up under discussion would differ from those deals because CIC would be investing indirectly, reflecting the growing worry among sovereign wealth funds of a political backlash as they put more money into well-known foreign companies.

    #2)

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_14/b3978115.htm

    Businessweek
    IDEAS – FACE TIME WITH MARIA BARTIROMO
    For Citi, No More Excuses

    Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Tal Alsaud, with a net worth estimated at almost $21 billion, is one of the world’s richest men. But he is no passive prince, sitting back while the oil billions roll in. Alwaleed, 48, is an active investor, with stakes in Apple (AAPL ), Disney (DIS ), Citigroup (C ) (with some $10 billion invested), and others. On Mar. 17 he announced that he would float an initial public offering for 30% of his holding company, Kingdom Holdings. The Prince, who was in Riyadh and spoke with me by phone, is a savvy businessman and a close observer of Middle East politics.

    Lets talk about one of your big holdings, Citigroup. Several of the company’s largest holders have recently been net sellers. What does [CEO] Chuck Prince need to do?

    I met with Sandy Weill and Chuck Prince a month ago at the George V Hotel in Paris, and we discussed the promise from Chuck that he will deliver good results. If I can quote him, he said: Prince, we have put the big problems of Citi behind us, and we have to move our shares to above 50.

    So how long a grace period are you giving Chuck Prince?
    The grace period is over. You can quote me on that.

    ……………………from one of the occupy sites………………………………

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
12. Kim says:
    2011/12/13 at 1:13 pm

    Here is a link to Bernie Sanders petition to get a constitutional amendment, as discussed above. Its far off due to our congress, but its an important step.
    http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
13. Steve Wright says:
    2011/12/11 at 8:36 pm

    Bernie Sanders has offered a constitutional amendment that addresses this:

    http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/Jan2011/sjres33.pdf
    “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly
    exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons
    by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending
    in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States
    to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election
    contributions and expenditures.”

    There are two issues at play here. The first, coprorate personhood, I do not think is a specific legal precedent. It is clearly a predisposition but I do not think the idea that corporations are people is written in to law. I believe legislation could be drafted to explicitly state that corporations are not people and as such do not have the right to free speech as an entity. (Likelihood of passing is very low. would need a deep and long grassroots movement, fortunately, this is an issue that could unite the right and the left.) The second is the idea that spending money is equivalent to speech. This is a specific legal precedent and would require a constitutional amendment to overturn.

    A short term solution could be to require complete transparency of all donations. If we knew for sure (Soros or Koch) who was giving to whom we would be in a better place.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
14. H says:
    2011/12/10 at 10:50 pm

    Greatly appreciated the added comments. We need many of your stature standing in solidarity and bringing truth to the forefront.

    Excellent provisions. Thank you.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
15. Wayne says:
    2011/12/10 at 12:31 pm

    Something else that Citizens United does receives little press but is just as aggregious; A citizen of another country (i.e. Canada) is not allowed to donate to an American election campaign, for obvious reasons. A corporation, however, doing business in the US, can move its headquarters to the Cayman Islands and still donate. If nothing else is done, Corporations that donate to American campaigns should be required to be headquartered and have the vast majority of their employees here.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Nathan D says:
      2011/12/19 at 12:13 am

      Even if we do not end corporate donations to campaigns or corporate advertising in support of (or against) candidates and things happening in congress, we should deny any corporation from doing this if any voting stock holders, any member of the board of directors, or any employees at or above the level who made and authorized such donations happens to be a non-citizen of the United States!

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
16. Carol says:
    2011/12/10 at 12:52 am

    Abrogating Citizens United would be a good start, but ONLY a start. The ruling was only the last in a series of FOUR Roberts Court decisions, beginning three years ago with Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, to have overturned the precedent judgment that the incredible wealth accumulated in corporate treasury funds posed a uniquely corrupting threat to the political process

    In fact, three Supreme Court cases before the Citizens ruling laid the framework and established precedent for it. These three cases, though less publicized, actually made MORE of a legal difference than Citizens did. All four cases must be abrogated in order to re-establish that rights are only for real people.

    In the words of Nathaniel Persily, a law & poli-sci professor at Columbia Law: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/01/the_floodgates_were_already_open.html

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Patrick Molen says:
      2011/12/10 at 2:43 pm

      Wow! Thank you Carol for your post on the three prior supreme court decisions. Our Democracy is in grave danger.

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - Gambit says:
        2011/12/17 at 8:20 am

        John Roberts was the worst thing that ever happened to the high court. Citizens V United wasn’t the only thing his leadership got wrong. There is MUCH to be undone.

        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Log in to Reply
    - Mark Greene says:
      2011/12/19 at 9:37 am

      Thanks, Carol – hadn’t realized the precedents that set us up for the knockout punch…

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply

### Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Would you prefer Michael Pollok, founder of the 99D, stay or resign?
Stay
Resign
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com
Should an anonymous donor be allowed to demand the resignation of a 99D board member as a condition of providing the match donation?
Yes
No
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com

Check out what's being said on all the Grievances and help draft the Petition!

1. Elimination of the Corporate State
View & Comment

2. Abrogation of “Citizens United” Case
View & Comment

3. Elimination of All Private Benefits and Perks” to Public Servants
View & Comment

4. Term Limits
View & Comment

5. A Fair Tax Code
View & Comment

6. Healthcare for All
View & Comment

7. Protection of the Planet
View & Comment

8. Federal Debt Reduction
View & Comment

9. Jobs for All Americans
View & Comment

10. Student Loan Debt Relief & Refinancing
View & Comment

11. Ending of Perpetual War for Profit
View & Comment

12. Emergency Reform of Public Education
View & Comment

13. End Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation
View & Comment

14. Banking and Securities Reform
View & Comment

15. Foreclosure Moratorium
View & Comment

16. Ending the Federal Reserve Bank
View & Comment

17. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Uniform Election Rules
View & Comment

18. Ending the War in Afghanistan and
Care of Veterans
View & Comment

19. No Censorship of the Internet
View & Comment

20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights
View & Comment

21. Ending the “War on Drugs” and
Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex
View & Comment

Suggest a Grievance
Please check if your idea fits in one of the already suggested grievances above first. If not, please add your comments here.
Other Suggestions/Revisions
Please check if your suggestion/revision fits in any of the grievances above. If not, you may post comments here.

### Vote for Delegates

- Register to Vote for Delegates

### Become A Delegate

- Become a Delegate

### Get Involved

- Volunteer

The 99% Declaration Website by The 99% Working Group, LTD is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. |  | Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha