On Monday, January 30th, I attended a panel discussion in the Tilton Hall of Clark University to discuss the Citizens United decision of January 2010, and what the organizers call the People’s Rights Amendment.
The event was attended by Jeff Clements and John Bonifaz, the two co-founders of Free Speech for People, an organization devoted to reversing the Supreme Courts decision on political free speech. John Bonifaz is an attorney and political activist specializing in constitutional law and voting rights, and founder of the National Voting Rights Institute. Jeff Clements served as Assistant Attorney General and Chief of the Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office from early 2007 to 2009. Mr. Clements is also the founder of Clements Law Office, LLC and is the author of the book Corporations Are Not People, which was on sale at the event, all profits going to further the cause. Congressman Jim McGovern, the representative for Massachusetts’s third district (which includes Worcester), was on the panel. The Honorable Representative is now championing the People’s Rights Amendment in the House of Representatives. State Senator Jamie Eldridge of the Worcester and Middlesex district was also present. Senator Eldridge is a co-sponsor of legislation to lessen the effects of Citizens United in Massachusetts.
For background in 2010, the Supreme Court reached a decision on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. A 5 to 4 majority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, found that a major part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold law, unconstitutionally infringed on the right to speak in political campaigns. The court’s decision is based on a strict reading of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It unleashes the right to speak that all groups may use if they choose. It did away with the hopeless morass of regulations and interpretations that created such a chilling burden that the court labeled it the equivalent of a prior restraint on speech.
Almost immediately those on the Reactionary Left started claiming that the ruling means that corporations are legally people and fall under the same constitutional protection as individuals. So a new “anti-corporate personhood” movement was launched. Opponents of the Citizens United decision contend that multi national corporations will donate unlimited funds to political campaigns, and that they are not required to disclose whom they give their funding to. This would mean those politicians who do what is good for corporations will receive funding for reelection campaigns, and those work for the people would not.
Lee Doren addresses these core points in this video response to Annie Leonard’s video.
The hypocrisy of this concept is manifested in Congressman McGovern, when he said “we need to reform our entire electoral system… we need to take the money out of the process and put people back into the process.” Rep McGovern has solicited millions of dollars for his reelection campaigns from corporations like, Sepracor, Raytheon, General Mills, The Shaw Group, Eli Lily, and many other Corporate Pacs, even when he was running unopposed. In the last election cycle he felt that he had to raise and to spend 20 times as much as his opponent Marty Lamb. But now he is championing the People’s Rights Amendment in the House of Representatives.
Much of the evening was given over to questions from the floor. The panel responded well to softball questions and sycophantic statements from their supporters. Repeatedly panelists saluted the Occupy Movement for how much work they have done in support of this cause. But the panelists seemed ill prepared when I asked "Why was the ACLU in support of the Citizen United case?" John Bonifaz claimed that they were tricked into it. When I asked, "The ACLU challenged FECA in Buckley vs. Valeo and in 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled partially in their favor. It struck down limits on independent expenditures, ruling that any individual or group unconnected to a candidate could advocate the election or defeat of that candidate without limit. It also struck down limits on expenditures by candidates, ruling that any limit on spending money to publish ads or brochures would necessarily bar speech. How was the Supreme Court wrong in this decision?" He just restated that they were wrong. When I asked "How can it be that if you buy a newspaper, you get to provide unlimited support for the candidate of your choice but if you buy a billboard to do the same thing, you commit a crime? Is it because only Media Corporations are more than people?" He claimed that they are only working to amend the Constitution and that they would leave those details to congress.
This meeting was held at Clark University to indoctrinate people into the cause. Attendees were asked to sign a petition, buy the book that the panelists quoted from often, and to contact their senators and representatives and encourage them to back the People’s Rights Amendment.
People’s Rights Amendment.
Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons
Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
Those in Free Speech for People.Org believe that this constitutional amendment would be a direct reversal of the Citizens United ruling and that courageous legislatures would write new and better laws to control political speech. Changing the Constitution is a lofty goal. It takes a lot of people, and a lot of time and a lot of money. Mr. Bonifaz stated that “there’s no question that we’re up against an enormous amount of power.” He was hopeful, though, and Mr. Clements said that it would be “a long effort,” but it would be worth it because the “difference between right and wrong is at stake.”
Those in the so called People’s Rights Amendment group claim their ideas are wildly popular. They cite a poll which claims that “68% of Republicans, 82% of Independents, and 87% of Democrats support the reversal of corporate personhood.” While not directly linked to, it appears that they are referring to a Hart Research Associates conducted survey of 500 registered voters from December 27, 2010, to January 3, 2011, on behalf of Free Speech for People with support from the Nathan Cummings Foundation.
From the survey released by Hart Research Associates:
“American democracy is an amazing and responsive form of government. For all the Sturm and Drang that surrounds our political system, the American public instinctively seems to know when things have gone too far or the system is out of balance. It does not take a tragedy like Tucson to know when the dialogue needs to be recalibrated.” (Emphasis added)
Tea Party members like me will find that quip chilling. After all that we have learned since the horrifying crime that happened to Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the eighteen other people who were shot during a public meeting held in a supermarket parking near Tucson, Arizona, some in the Democrat party are still attempting to manipulate that tragedy to defame and libel the Tea Party Movement.
It is worth noting that Hart Research Associates is a favorite resource of the progressive wing of the Democrat party.
Much of the evening was given over to questions from the floor. The panel responded well to softball questions and sycophantic statements from their supporters. Repeatedly panelists saluted the Occupy Movement for how much work they have done in support of this cause. But the panelists seemed ill prepared when I asked "Why was the ACLU in support of the Citizen United case?" John Bonifaz claimed that they were tricked into it. When I asked, "The ACLU challenged FECA in Buckley vs. Valeo and in 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled partially in their favor. It struck down limits on independent expenditures, ruling that any individual or group unconnected to a candidate could advocate the election or defeat of that candidate without limit. It also struck down limits on expenditures by candidates, ruling that any limit on spending money to publish ads or brochures would necessarily bar speech. How was the Supreme Court wrong in this decision?" He just restated that they were wrong. When I asked "How can it be that if you buy a newspaper, you get to provide unlimited support for the candidate of your choice but if you buy a billboard to do the same thing, you commit a crime? Is it because only Media Corporations are more than people?" He claimed that they are only working to amend the Constitution and that they would leave those details to congress. Other Tea Party members asked questions and had their questions waved away in a similar high handed manner. When the event ended, some of those that remained posed for photos with the panelists, reminiscent of how teenage girls pose for photos with the stars of boy bands.
So why do I spend so much time recording what I saw and heard here?
This is an important front in the war on freedom. Occupy Wall Street, is now being co-opted by Common Cause and subsumed into the Progressive Democrat party. This and other aspects of the class warfare issue are pumping energized foot soldiers and money into the statist’s camp. If we don’t confront them on this issue and push back as often and as forcefully as we can then this cancer will grow. I request that you follow the links below and educate yourself on this issue and then do all that you can to stand up for freedom!
