Increasingly, people are recognizing that even if Congress has the power to legislate so as to restrict the flow of corporate money in campaigns, they will continue to be unwilling to use it unless the practice is banned outright by a constitutional amendment.
The failure to even pass legislation to disclose the source of such funding is adequate evidence of that, should anyone doubt it. In addition, honest attempts to create a level playing field through public financing have been undermined by a Supreme Court in decisions that make Citizens United look, well...judicious.
There are many amendments that have been proposed whose sponsors claim will abolish corporate personhood and/or declare that money is not free speech. Here is a discussion of the problems with the five types that have been introduced in Congress to date and of two that are being promoted by various groups and individuals to address these problems.
EDWARDS-STYLE AMENDMENTS TO GIVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE CORPORATE "FREE SPEECH"
The Donna Edwards amendment is the prototype of a group of amendments that would if passed give Congress the power to regulate corporate money in campaigns. Others falling into this group include the Schrader, Udall and Baucus proposals. Congress had this power before Citizens United but declined to use it to end this corrupting practice. There is no reason to think that a Congress now even more thoroughly corrupted by corporate money would use that power if by some miracle it were to pass.
More importantly, by stating that Congress can regulate campaign contributions, the idea that corporations have a "right" to influence elections would be enshrined in the constitution. There is a real danger of this happening. Members of Congress are beginning to realize that the People are demanding that they overturn Citizens United, at a minimum. Passing such a weak amendment would be a gesture likely to convince a public unaware of the distinction that Congress is doing the only "politically possible" thing when in fact such an amendment would do little beyond causing the amendment movement to lose steam.
The practice of corporations asking for and getting toothless regulation to avoid the danger of real regulation has a long history of success. Corporate tools in Congress have routinely passed regulation to allow dangerous levels of poisons to be spewed into the environment in the guise of "protecting the public" by making specific limits on pollutants that the polluters can live with. We saw the same thing with the Baucus-orchestrated debate on medical insurance "reform" that resulted in the bailout of a failing medical insurance industry through the Unaffordable Healthcare Act.
VIEW TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE.
NOTE: TEXT OF THE EDWARDS AMENDMENT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE OTHERS BUT ALL ARE RESTRICTED TO GIVING CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE.
VIEW TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE.
NOTE: TEXT OF THE EDWARDS AMENDMENT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE OTHERS BUT ALL ARE RESTRICTED TO GIVING CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE.
YARMUTH/JONES AMENDMENT STATES THAT MONEY IS NOT FREE SPEECH AND AUTHORIZES PUBLIC FINANCING
At this writing, this is the least known of the amendments despite (or perhaps because) of the fact that it is a bipartisan effort to address the issue of money in politics, sponsored by Congressmen Walter Jones (R-NC) and John Yarmuth (D-KY). It explicitly states that money is not speech, theoretically empowering Congress to regulate it. It further explicitly authorizes Congress to establish a mandatory system of public financing. Finally, it creates a federal holiday for the purpose of voting in federal general elections.
The principle problem with this bill is that by itself it would leave things largely unchanged until such time when members of Congress might decide to give up the system by which they ascended to office. In addition, it does not explicitly state that corporations are not people. Under the Supreme Court doctrine that they are people under the Fourteenth Amendment they could continue to assert all the constitutional rights of human beings subsumed under the concept of corporate personhood. This includes the Fourth Amendment "right" to avoid surprise inspections by regulatory agencies tasked with protecting public safety, among other things.
VIEW TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE.
VIEW TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE.
DEUTCH/SANDERS AMENDMENTS TO LIMIT CORPORATE PERSONHOOD TO "NONPROFIT" CORPORATIONS
At the time of this writing, the Sanders proposal is perhaps the best known of all the resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment. Also known as "The Saving American Democracy Amendment," it is essentially identical to the one introduced earlier in the House by Ted Deutch (D-FL). It declares that for-profit corporations do not have personal rights and that they cannot donate to political campaigns or ballot measures. It also allows Congress and the States to set limits on personal expenditures in such campaigns and to require disclosure of sources of funds to campaign committees whose operation they would regulate.
The Sanders resolution has received a lot of publicity due to Senator Sanders' reputation for representing people over corporations. Because of this, it has not been widely scrutinized by his fans or the alternative media. This has resulted in many people not understanding its serious problems.
These amendments attempt to curb corporate spending without affecting the ability of unions or 501.c4s to influence elections. In carving out an exception for nonprofits to a ban on corporate contributions, the claim that they would "prohibit corporate spending in all elections" rings false. Citizens United itself was incorporated as a 501.c4 "public interest" nonprofit. These nonprofits are allowed to lobby and to participate in political campaigns and elections without revealing the source of their funding. If the disclosure requirements of campaign committees do not apply to these "public interest" nonprofits, corporations can continue to spend money indirectly to influence elections without fear of exposure.
Excluding unions from a ban on bundled money in elections is not justifiable on philosophical or practical political considerations. If corporations are associations of people who join together in their own self interest then so are unions, which are in fact incorporated. Failure to admit this will guarantee the principled opposition of those who believe, rightly or wrongly, that unions have too much power in elections. Regardless of the truth of this supposition, it makes no sense to have this fight when many union members are concluding that the politicians their PAC money are supporting no longer serve their interests.
VIEW TEXT OF DEUTCH AMENDMENT HERE.
VIEW TEXT OF DEUTCH AMENDMENT HERE.
MCGOVERN AMENDMENT DECLARING THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE
Also known as "The People's Rights Amendment," the amendment proposed by Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) states that corporations are not people and are subject to regulation by the States and federal government.
The McGovern amendment would not address the issue of whether money is free speech, or whether unions are subject to the same restrictions as corporations. Although the protections afforded corporations under the doctrine of corporate personhood would be removed, it would still be up to Congress and the States to impose limits on corporate, union or "nonprofit" spending.
VIEW TEXT OF MCGOVERN AMENDMENT HERE.
VIEW TEXT OF MCGOVERN AMENDMENT HERE.
KUCINICH AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH FEDERAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE
3) Without specifics of how the system would be administered, the Kucinich amendment will encounter unnecessary resistance. A public finance system in Portland, Oregon was struck down by voters for for a variety of reasons, including voters who were unhappy with the ease with which marginal candidates could obtain public funds.
4) Many people who do not object to special interest groups being barred from contributing to political campaigns will not want to lose the ability to choose who among candidates to financially back. This was another of the arguments used to defeat the Portland system.
VIEW TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE.
A PROPOSAL TO ABOLISH CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, END BUNDLED PRIVATE MONEY IN ELECTIONS AND CONTROL LOBBYING
SECTION 2. All non-living entities established by law in the United States shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by the people and their elected governments. Corporations shall be defined as “persons” only for the purposes of contracting, suing, being sued, transacting business and continuity of operations as people come and go, as defined under state and federal law. Corporate charters do not limit the liability of officers of corporations or board members from criminal prosecution for acts authorized by them on behalf of the corporation.
In January 2012 Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced an amendment that would eliminate all private donations to campaigns for national office. It would replace this by requiring the establishment a system of federally funded elections. This is an entirely new approach to addressing the problem of special interest money influencing the outcome of elections. If passed, it would effectively overturn Supreme Court decisions that have undermined public financing laws in Arizona and Vermont.
This amendment would effectively establish that money is not free speech and that corporations and other special interest groups cannot contribute to elections.
While the Kucinich resolution would definitely solve the problem of special interest money in politics, it does not address the issue of abolishing "rights" granted corporations by the Supreme Court that have nothing to do with the legitimate needs of businesses and generally do not serve the public interest. In the early days of the Republic, demonstrating that a corporation would serve the public interest was a requirement to obtain a charter from a State.
Criticisms of this amendment include:
1) Many groups and individuals in the abolition movement are adamant that if they are going to devote the effort needed to pass an amendment that it must explicitly abolish corporate personhood. This includes Move to Amend, the largest coalition of abolitionist groups.
2) Another practical reason to include abolition of corporate personhood is that many of the supporters of an amendment are attracted by the slogan "Corporations are not People!"
While the Kucinich resolution would definitely solve the problem of special interest money in politics, it does not address the issue of abolishing "rights" granted corporations by the Supreme Court that have nothing to do with the legitimate needs of businesses and generally do not serve the public interest. In the early days of the Republic, demonstrating that a corporation would serve the public interest was a requirement to obtain a charter from a State.
Criticisms of this amendment include:
1) Many groups and individuals in the abolition movement are adamant that if they are going to devote the effort needed to pass an amendment that it must explicitly abolish corporate personhood. This includes Move to Amend, the largest coalition of abolitionist groups.
2) Another practical reason to include abolition of corporate personhood is that many of the supporters of an amendment are attracted by the slogan "Corporations are not People!"
3) Without specifics of how the system would be administered, the Kucinich amendment will encounter unnecessary resistance. A public finance system in Portland, Oregon was struck down by voters for for a variety of reasons, including voters who were unhappy with the ease with which marginal candidates could obtain public funds.
4) Many people who do not object to special interest groups being barred from contributing to political campaigns will not want to lose the ability to choose who among candidates to financially back. This was another of the arguments used to defeat the Portland system.
VIEW TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE.
MOVE TO AMEND PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND MONEY IS NOT FREE SPEECH
Move to Amend has proposed an amendment that would address most of the shortcomings of all the resolutions that have been introduced to Congress thus far. It explicitly states that corporations are not people, that money is not free speech and that ALL entities established by the laws of the US, the States or foreign governments are subject to regulation through federal, state and local law. It establishes that corporations have no rights under the constitution and that no privileges granted these associations by governments is inherent or inalienable. Like the Deutch/Sanders amendments, it allows Congress to regulate individual donations. It also requires that all contributions must be publicly disclosed.
The major problem with the amendment is that it does not make contributions by these entities illegal. Instead, it states that:
"Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure."
It may seem to follow logically that if corporations are not people and campaign cash is not protected as free speech then corporations and other special interest groups should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. However, it will be up to Congress and the courts to decide that. A growing number of people are arguing that if we are going to solve the problem through an amendment, it should include an explicit ban on expenditures in elections by all "special interest" associations as well as well as empowering Congress to limit individual campaign expenditures.
VIEW MTA PROPOSED AMENDMENT HERE.
VIEW MTA PROPOSED AMENDMENT HERE.
The following language is designed to incorporate the best features of the previous amendments and to also address the other method by which corporate money can be used to corrupt elected officials; the promise of well-paying jobs in private industries which they have the duty of regulating while in office.
While the wording of this proposed amendment is subject to debate, it is intended to abolish corporate personhood, establish that it is illegal for any state-created entity to contribute to political campaigns or ballot initiatives and to remove incentives for lobbyists and members of Congress to put the interests of corporations over those of We the People.
While the wording of this proposed amendment is subject to debate, it is intended to abolish corporate personhood, establish that it is illegal for any state-created entity to contribute to political campaigns or ballot initiatives and to remove incentives for lobbyists and members of Congress to put the interests of corporations over those of We the People.
SECTION 1. The rights, responsibilities, and privileges granted to “person” or “persons” as enumerated in this Constitution, its amendments, and extended through case law are exclusively reserved for human beings.
SECTION 2. All non-living entities established by law in the United States shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by the people and their elected governments. Corporations shall be defined as “persons” only for the purposes of contracting, suing, being sued, transacting business and continuity of operations as people come and go, as defined under state and federal law. Corporate charters do not limit the liability of officers of corporations or board members from criminal prosecution for acts authorized by them on behalf of the corporation.
SECTION 3. No non-living entity may donate to political campaigns directly or indirectly. All donations must come from the personal assets of individuals or via public funds expressly authorized by law to be used for that purpose. Congress and the states shall limit or abolish individual donations or other expenditures intended to influence the outcome of elections.
SECTION 4. No corporation shall pay, contribute or offer, consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office.
SECTION 5. No employee of the federal government, including elected officials, shall enter into employment or contractual arrangement with any corporate entity that is subject to regulation by the branch of government or department in which that employee serves, for a period of ten years following the end of their term of federal service, nor shall anyone who has derived the majority of his or her income in any manner from a corporate entity or industry in the 10 years prior to federal employment participate in decisions regarding regulation of that industry or corporation.
SECTION 6. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to abridge individual rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press or other inalienable rights of the People.
SECTION 7. Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED IN THE 2013th CONGRESS
Having failed to make support for any of the proposed amendments or an alternative the central issue in any campaign in 2010 (to my knowledge), none of them gained significant traction. However, some of the sponsors are listening to critics and working to improve their amendment proposals. A slightly modified version of the MTA proposal has been introduced into the House as well.
REVISED MCGOVERN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
In response to concerns about the original McGovern Resolution not addressing campaign finance, McGovern introduced both a slightly revised version of his 2012 amendment abolishing corporate personhood and a second resolution that would allow both the federal and state governments to limit campaign expenditures.
HJR 20 allows the federal government and states to regulate campaign finance regulations. It empowers Congress to set limits on both direct and indirect campaign expenditures but implies that Congress has powers to impose other regulations.
HJR 21 is essentially identical to the original resolution. It includes the puzzling phrase "corporate entities are subject to such regulation as... are (sic) otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution." This appears to many to be a non sequitur, implying that the Supreme Court can limit such powers, as it has in dozens of decisions that would be overturned by an end to the doctrine of corporate personhood. HJR 20 explicitly states that Congress has the power to implement the amendment through legislation, thus limiting Supreme Court purview over campaign finance laws.
Taken together, HJR 20 and HJR 21 would have a general effect similar to the Nolan/Pocan amendment, but without a requirement for full disclosure, explicitly allowing limits on a candidate's own expenditures or being applicable to ballot measures.
The presumed advantage of introducing two amendments is that should either component be too controversial, the other would still have a chance of passage. Others consider this a disadvantage, arguing that with the difficulty of passing an amendment in the first place, both abolition of corporate personhood and campaign finance regulation should be included.
As with all other resolutions thus far, this amendment would not explicitly ban corporate campaign contributions. Exactly what constitutes "regulation" of campaign finance would be interpreted by Congress and the courts.
READ HJR 20 HERE.
READ HJR 21 HERE.
NOLAN/POCAN AMENDMENT
HJR 29 is based on the original Move to Amend proposal, with minor modifications. The same criticisms of the resolution apply.VIEW TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE.
The Sanders amendment is unique among resolutions introduced in Congress thus far. It is the first to incorporate the idea of explicitly banning corporate campaign contributions, whether from for-profit corporations or general union funds which members do not vote to direct to specific candidates or PACs. This is the key element missing in the Nolan Pocan amendment that I proposed in the model amendment above in 2012.Disappointingly, the provision in the 2012 version to abolish corporate personhood was dropped in the new resolution. According to the chief legislative aide working on the amendment, there was concern expressed among senators working with Sanders of "unintended consequences" of declaring that corporations do not have the constitutional rights of humans. This concern was echoed by Senator Merkley's aides and remains an important area of continuing debate. Presumably, hesitation in endorsing abolition led McGovern to reintroduce his original amendment separately from his resolution for an amendment to reform campaign finance.As in the first bill, the language includes a clause that some believe may inadvertently doom it. It calls for a seven year window for ratification, which is not a requirement of the constitution. Some feel this is insufficient time to assure ratification by 38 states. While it seems to be a superfluous and possibly harmful aspect of the bill, it is likely that by the time we have a Congress in place ready to deal with campaign finance reform definitively, it will be hard to find more than 12 state legislatures willing to oppose it.
VIEW THE SANDERS AMENDMENT HERE.
SECTION 4. No corporation shall pay, contribute or offer, consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office.
SECTION 5. No employee of the federal government, including elected officials, shall enter into employment or contractual arrangement with any corporate entity that is subject to regulation by the branch of government or department in which that employee serves, for a period of ten years following the end of their term of federal service, nor shall anyone who has derived the majority of his or her income in any manner from a corporate entity or industry in the 10 years prior to federal employment participate in decisions regarding regulation of that industry or corporation.
SECTION 6. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to abridge individual rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press or other inalienable rights of the People.
SECTION 7. Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED IN THE 2013th CONGRESS
Having failed to make support for any of the proposed amendments or an alternative the central issue in any campaign in 2010 (to my knowledge), none of them gained significant traction. However, some of the sponsors are listening to critics and working to improve their amendment proposals. A slightly modified version of the MTA proposal has been introduced into the House as well.
REVISED MCGOVERN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
In response to concerns about the original McGovern Resolution not addressing campaign finance, McGovern introduced both a slightly revised version of his 2012 amendment abolishing corporate personhood and a second resolution that would allow both the federal and state governments to limit campaign expenditures.
HJR 20 allows the federal government and states to regulate campaign finance regulations. It empowers Congress to set limits on both direct and indirect campaign expenditures but implies that Congress has powers to impose other regulations.
HJR 21 is essentially identical to the original resolution. It includes the puzzling phrase "corporate entities are subject to such regulation as... are (sic) otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution." This appears to many to be a non sequitur, implying that the Supreme Court can limit such powers, as it has in dozens of decisions that would be overturned by an end to the doctrine of corporate personhood. HJR 20 explicitly states that Congress has the power to implement the amendment through legislation, thus limiting Supreme Court purview over campaign finance laws.
Taken together, HJR 20 and HJR 21 would have a general effect similar to the Nolan/Pocan amendment, but without a requirement for full disclosure, explicitly allowing limits on a candidate's own expenditures or being applicable to ballot measures.
The presumed advantage of introducing two amendments is that should either component be too controversial, the other would still have a chance of passage. Others consider this a disadvantage, arguing that with the difficulty of passing an amendment in the first place, both abolition of corporate personhood and campaign finance regulation should be included.
As with all other resolutions thus far, this amendment would not explicitly ban corporate campaign contributions. Exactly what constitutes "regulation" of campaign finance would be interpreted by Congress and the courts.
READ HJR 20 HERE.
READ HJR 21 HERE.
NOLAN/POCAN AMENDMENT
HJR 29 is based on the original Move to Amend proposal, with minor modifications. The same criticisms of the resolution apply.VIEW TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE.
REVISED SANDERS AMENDMENT
The Sanders amendment is unique among resolutions introduced in Congress thus far. It is the first to incorporate the idea of explicitly banning corporate campaign contributions, whether from for-profit corporations or general union funds which members do not vote to direct to specific candidates or PACs. This is the key element missing in the Nolan Pocan amendment that I proposed in the model amendment above in 2012.Disappointingly, the provision in the 2012 version to abolish corporate personhood was dropped in the new resolution. According to the chief legislative aide working on the amendment, there was concern expressed among senators working with Sanders of "unintended consequences" of declaring that corporations do not have the constitutional rights of humans. This concern was echoed by Senator Merkley's aides and remains an important area of continuing debate. Presumably, hesitation in endorsing abolition led McGovern to reintroduce his original amendment separately from his resolution for an amendment to reform campaign finance.As in the first bill, the language includes a clause that some believe may inadvertently doom it. It calls for a seven year window for ratification, which is not a requirement of the constitution. Some feel this is insufficient time to assure ratification by 38 states. While it seems to be a superfluous and possibly harmful aspect of the bill, it is likely that by the time we have a Congress in place ready to deal with campaign finance reform definitively, it will be hard to find more than 12 state legislatures willing to oppose it.
VIEW THE SANDERS AMENDMENT HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment