CONNECT
Campaign For America’s Future / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 20 November 2011
“Immediately upon adoption, this amendment would prohibit business corporations and their associations from using money or other resources to influence voting on candidates or ballot measures anywhere in America.”
Finally, a Constitutional Amendment for the 99%
Today, Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL) offered the strongest constitutional amendment introduced in either House of Congress so far to rectify the imbalance of power between the corporations and the people in our democracy.
As the struggle in the streets intensifies, and Occupy Wall Street refuses to remain silent, it’s good to know there are champions in Congress who have stepped up to the challenge of amending the US Constitution. It’s called OCCUPIED: Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy, here.
The Supreme Court, in the 5-4 Citizens United decision of January 2010, declared that corporations have free speech rights like human beings and invalidated the ban on corporate election spending that Congress had enacted. Since then, a grassroots movement has emerged to generate popular support for a constitutional amendment to reverse that decision, including months of work by Move to Amend, Free Speech For People, Public Citizen, People For The American Way, Common Cause, and the Center for Media and Democracy.
Rep. Deutch’s amendment is a blend of the best ideas.
1. The rights protected by the Constitution belong to human beings (natural persons).2. Constitutional rights do not extend to for-profit corporations or other business entities, nor do they extend to chambers of commerce that promote business interests.3. The constitutional rights of other non-profit corporations, such as charities, churches, schools, hospitals, clubs, unions, and environmental groups remain in place.4. Immediately upon adoption, this amendment would prohibit business corporations and their associations from using money or other resources to influence voting on candidates or ballot measures anywhere in America—at the federal, state, and local levels.5. Counteracting the 2010 Citizens United case and the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, Congress and the states would once again have the authority to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, by any group or person.6. This would empower Congress and the states to control election spending by CEOs and other wealthy individuals, including those rich enough to pay for their own campaigns.
Comparing the OCCUPIED amendment to some of the others proposed:
Unlike the amendment offered by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the Deutch amendment does more than remove constitutional rights from corporations, LLCs, and other corporate entities. It reaches all forms of business enterprise, but without the unintended consequence of stripping constitutional rights from unions and nonprofit public interest corporations, such as the Sierra Club, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, and your local community center. The McGovern amendment would not automatically prohibit corporate election spending and would not enable Congress and the states to set limits on election spending by the wealthy. The Deutch amendment does both.
Unlike the companion amendments introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) in the Senate and Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) in the House, the Deutch amendment goes beyond simply authorizing Congress and the states to regulate campaign financing. It removes the shield of constitutional rights from business corporations and their associations, and imposes an immediate, nationwide ban on corporate election spending.
Unlike the ideas floated by TV commentator Dylan Ratigan and Professor Larry Lessig, the Deutch amendment would not use the Constitution to prevent citizens from donating to the candidates of their choice, or to chisel a dollar limit on individual donations into constitutional stone. Wisely, the Deutch amendment protects and does not diminish individual rights, and leaves the matter of setting contribution and expenditure limits to the people through the federal, state, and local legislative processes.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) and a number of co-sponsors in the House bravely introduced the first attempt at drafting an amendment in Congress some months back. Hopefully, she and her colleagues will recognize that the spirit in the streets and around kitchen tables and the level of legal craftsmanship have progressed to the point where a stronger amendment like Rep. Deutch’s deserves their support.
Personally, I proposed a simple amendment in January 2011, that would limit campaign financing to the donations of individual citizens only. I still think that’s a good idea, but I have to recognize the value of combining everyone’s best thinking into a comprehensive reform amendment. Rep. Deutch has done that with OCCUPIED. Let’s join him.
FEATURE A
Connect with your friends
Find new content you might like and see what your friends are sharing!
35 comments on "Finally, a Constitutional Amendment for the 99%"
March 03, 2012 12:43pm
Ted Deutch, from the Florida 19th? The co-sponsor of Federal Restrict Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, where this bill has finally reached President's desk this week?
This bill makes it a felony to disrupt, even via peaceful protest, the proceedings of any one given Secret Service protection or any building said person visits or is designated as a national meeting. If signed, it means that if you wish to protest many political rallies (many candidates receive SS protection) or a G8 summit meeting, you have committed a felony.
kduqwuaj
November 30, 2011 3:47pm
Let's sock it to all the evil stockholders in corporations: you, me, my next-door neighbors -- and the man behind that tree.
Let's sock it to all the evil stockholders in corporations: you, me, my next-door neighbors -- and the man behind that tree.
November 21, 2011 7:34pm
"Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws"
Baron M.A. Rothschild
U.S. Currency is a Federal Reserve Note and carries the banner of legal tender. We are required to use bank created money, money that bares the burden of interest due to the banks.
The Constitution makes no provision what so ever for this so called legality. Banking is the biggest lobby on the beltway. This amendment won't make that go away.
Just applying the existing constitutional law as intended by the founders would go much farther. If those laws are ignored what is the point of a new law?
Best, Dan.
November 21, 2011 12:14pm
Because of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruling from the United States of America's Supreme Court. I have written and stated that I want A Constitutional Amendment to the United States of America's Constitution Article One, to clearly define that an Individual is a Living Breathing Member of the Homo-Sapiens Species and that Corporations, Companies, Institutions, or any kind of Organization are not Individuals and do not have the same Rights as do Living Breathing Individuals. I also want it to clearly state that only Congress has the Right and the Ability to place limits upon What, Where, When and How an individual may make Contributions to a Political Party or to an Individual running for a Political Office.
An Individual may only make a Contribution to a Political Party or Individual Political Candidate that lives or operates within the State that the Individual Contributor lives in 51% of the Year. We the People want outsiders stopped from affecting elections in our home states. The Individual making the contribution has to send it to the Federal Election Commission specifying the Political Party or the Political Candidate they want the funds to go to. The Federal Election Commission would then once a month, send the Contribution to the Political party or the Individual Political Candidate but it would be Anonymous so that neither the Political Party nor the Individual Candidate would feel an obligation to the Donor.
Political Action Committees may only advertise their Support for, or Against an Issue that they have an interest in. They MUST NEVER be permitted to be for or against an Individual Candidate or Political Party.
November 21, 2011 8:08am
I agree completely with those pointing out the non profit loophole. Before such an amendment would even be enacted, corporations and their wealthy managers will create non profits to continue their political giving.
April 10, 2012 9:23am
The proposed amendment makes the non-profit dodge illegal too. Any "entity" set up for business purposes would include such an organization fronting for a for-profit-corporation.
November 21, 2011 7:52am
NO SUPERPACS OR PACS FOR ANY POLITICIAN INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT.
November 21, 2011 5:37am
please indicate what line in this amendment you read what you just wrote....?
November 21, 2011 4:09am
At last a amendment to protect individuals who vote without being surpassed by money votes!
November 20, 2011 10:46pm
Seems too complicated to me. Doubt it will get anywhere.
November 20, 2011 9:50pm
Unfortunately the Deutch proposal goes too far, by stripping business corporations of _all_ Constitutional rights. Does anyone really think that a business corporation should not have the right to own such property as is necessary to the conduct of its business; to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; to jury trial if accused of criminal activity or sued for substantial damages; etc?
November 20, 2011 9:29pm
Now we're getting somewhere.
It's time to hold their feet to the fire. Demand a promise and solemn PLEDGE from each and every CongressCritter, Presidential Candidate and State Legislator and Governor that they will vote for this Amendment or you will not vote for them...
If they renig on their vow, make sure they lose their next election...
This is NOT a "left" or "right" issue, it's a HUMAN Rights issue!
November 20, 2011 7:35pm
I just copied the amendment part of the article to my Representative. I do have a problem with #6, and told him so, as well as what my suggested recommendation would be, and I hope he will get behind a movement to add a Constitutional Amendment. If enough of us did the same, there might be some progress.
November 20, 2011 6:43pm
If we do not finance election with tax money, we will still have corporate money finding its way in various forms into buying elections. It is a lot cheaper in the long run to elect using tax money than private funds. We all pay for it and we all demand candidates have moderated debates chaired by academicians, public and private sector representatives determined by Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO. The whole process should be limited to three months and be done with it. That would let elected officials discharge their service to the public instead of looking over their shoulders if their corporate bosses would fund them next time.
November 20, 2011 6:29pm
One man, one vote, one dollar. No loopholes!!! Nuff said
November 20, 2011 6:27pm
I think this is a great idea, and I don't know if anyone has asked this yet, but wouldn't this also undermine the Federal Reserve? They are a private business providing all the funding for all candidates.
November 20, 2011 4:42pm
How many TV ads can you buy in six weeks? Instead of controlling the money, how about we control the timeframe? For example (for federal offices), no money or services could be solicited or accepted prior to formal candidacy. The earliest a person can file for candidacy is May 1 of the election year (e.g., 2012). Primary elections would be first of July. Party conventions in early September, and elections early November. A person without a background won't develop a resume in a two-year campaign. That would eliminate our current perpetual campaigning. In this world of 24-7 instant news and communications, we need to move away from the schedules and timing of the old horse-trail and whistle-stop campaigns.
Audible eye roll in 3-2-1...
November 20, 2011 4:22pm
This is an amendment loaded with loopholes.It says the states and federal governments shall have th ability to set limits on financeing.Does anyone in their right mind think the legislatures who depend on the corporate handouts will regulate them with any effectiveness.Sounds more like a campaign slogan then a real effort to stop corporate citizenship and spending as much as they want.Plus many others have pointed out shell charities started by the rich and run by them can still contribute to their hearts desires.It is a weakly written amendment to pacify the owls crowd with no real support to anyone who wants to stop corporate personhood.
November 20, 2011 3:45pm
If we truly want to get money out of politics we'll need join in the effort to draft comprehensive legislation (not a constitutional amendment) that will remove all special interest money and corrupt practices from politics, and will deploy the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2, Sentence 2) of the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over cases involving elections and political questions generally, and any case hinging on the money=speech metaphor specifically.follow the effective strategy elaborated in detail here: http://moneyouttapolitics.org/
November 21, 2011 5:41am
leslie, thank you for your informed reply.
November 20, 2011 3:20pm
The not-for-profit exemption is a HUGE loophole, big enough to drive billions in contributions through and keep the bundling / lobbying industry alive for current and future generations of Congresspeople and Senators who see public service as a gateway into the 1%. United re:public has a better, simpler plan that would really change politics from a profession back into a privilege.
November 20, 2011 11:18pm
I would suggest reading the proposed amendment itself http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf rather than relying on a summary that, as I read it, is not entirely accurate. In particular, the amendment applies to "for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes _or to promote business interests_" (emphasis added). To me, that seems to include even "non-profit" organizations if their purpose is to promote business.
I have some concerns about the proposal -- see my other comment -- but this "loophole" is not currently one of them.
November 20, 2011 2:22pm
WE THE PEOPLE, NEED TO KICK SOME CORPORATE ASS.
THE OWS / 99% “BLACK FRIDAY BOYCOTT.”
OWS and the 99% have the Power! “BUYING POWER.” It’s about time we used it. WE CAN INSTANTLY STOP THE FLOW OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Here’s how.
WE’RE NOT BUYING ON BLACK FRIDAY.
STRANGLE THE COMPANIES THAT ARE STRANGLING US!
Companies want our money, but they don’t want to help America get back on its feet?
We are being starved, now let’s starve those greedy corporations who took our money.
We want companies to hire us, politicians to vote for us, and this is how to force it.
We have an incredible mobile army of millions and millions and millions of people!
Let’s combine the power that we all have. VOTE, by NOT spending.
Stop buying as much as you can. Stop buying from ALL of the big corporations, retailers and banks; Wal-Mart, Walgreen’s, CVS, Rite Aid, Kroger, Costco, Target, Home Depot, Best Buy, Sears, Lowe’s, Supervalu, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Georgia Pacific, RJR, Brown & Williamson, Kraft Global, Sara Lee, Tyson, BP, Shell Oil, Exxon Mobile, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Sprint, Dell, Microsoft, Dow Chemical, Chevron, Kimberly-Clark, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Capital One, Ford, Chrysler, GM, Disney, Macy’s, Kohl’s, The Gap, Penny’s, Colgate, Nike, Staples, Office Depot, Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Avon, Starbucks, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Kellogg’s, Dean Foods, General Mills, eBay, etc., All of them!
Add your own companies to our list and pass it on.
Don’t use global banks. Move your money from a big bank to a neighborhood bank.
Don’t use your credit cards or ATM’s…at all.
Don’t shop any retail chain stores. Shop local, or mom and pop shops.
Don’t buy gasoline. Walk, take a bus, car pool, or ride a bike.
Don’t buy any extras like music, movies, electronics, or toys…nothing.
BUY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE, FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.
STOP SPENDING OUR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.
Greedy global companies will be shocked and not know what to do.
Wall Street, the oil barons, corporate fat cats, stockholders, executives, marketers, retailers, politicians, and President Obama, will be asking us, the 99%, what we want!
“WE” WILL FORCE WALL STREET AND CORPORATIONS TO HELP AMERICA!
We have already started.
V
November 20, 2011 1:10pm
...
November 20, 2011 1:05pm
I've always thought that campaign finance reform, in the balance of free speech and fighting corruption, should allow any person eligible to vote for a candidate, to make a transparent donation to that candidate of an amount not to exceed ten percent of the annual salary for the position they are running. It's a simple 2 step rule that would eliminate copious amounts of corrupting influence. It's impossible to pass laws like this though, because the lobbyists just cough up huge donations to make them go away.
November 20, 2011 1:02pm
I have always believed that funding in national elections should be done by the government on a 50-50 basis. You get what you get and when you use it, the advertising is done. There would be no attack ads by groups. Volunteers could hand out literature. They could go door to door, etc. But the big bucks donors would be out and people would have an opportunity to see the candidates for what they are worth.
November 20, 2011 2:55pm
"...the advertising is done." Oh, man, peace and quiet. Wouldn't that be a wonderful byproduct of your proposal.
I like the rest of it, too. Another result of it might be to shorten the election season.
November 20, 2011 12:47pm
Which could also cut-off our representatives' ability to indirectly loot our treasury considering that corporate subsidies from our government are then paid back to our legislators by lobbyists in the form of "campaign" contributions--why then would they want to end subsidies for highly profitable corporations?
November 20, 2011 4:08pm
The politicians have been draining our Social Security and Medicare funds, and now the US Postal Service. What's next on their greedy lists?
November 20, 2011 4:06pm
You stated the root of the problem we have today correctly, and it is the people who have to change that, the politicians sure won't.
November 20, 2011 10:40am
What about environmental organizations that, for example, are funded by Dow Chemical and focus on the dangers of invasive plants, to the extent of funding studies on them that show their dangers to ecosystems are so great that they must be attacked with Dow herbicides? This organization might have a lot of campaign donations to spread around. Is the source of contributions to non-profit public interest corporations and to charities covered somehow in the amendment or regulations?
November 21, 2011 5:38am
please reread what you are commenting on....this is a stipulation written in there for non-profits...willickers people....!