>Free Speech Is For People, Not Corporations

>Is it time for a Constitutional Amendment saying that once and for all? These folks seem to think so. Watch the video, see if you agree:


Filed under corporations, Supreme Court

8 responses to “>Free Speech Is For People, Not Corporations

  1. >Certainly we need a constitutional amendment to enforce that "people" means "human being" and not "artificial legal construct". As we have seen in the "Citizens United" case, artificial legal constructs are powerful enough to put 5 of their fans on the court and re-write our constitution. It took them a couple of decades to grow the Federalist Society that now dominates our judiciary, but the constructs are patient – after all, unlike humans, they are immortal. In the short run, we can reform corporate law so that corporations lose their limited liability advantages if they meddle in politics; after all, humans don't have limited liability so why should artificial legal constructs that seek the same rights as humans?

  2. >Thanks! I've signed the petition, added the button on my blogs an posted. This madness has to stop.

  3. >From Digby's comments from Thursday… "R U Reddy Well….we could write a simple Ammendment to the Constitution and shop it around. It would read . . . All the rights protected in this Constitution shall be considered to inhere in, or adhere to, Natural Persons only, and that collective aggregation of Natural Persons hereinelsewhere referred to as The People. Clean it up and make it Constitutionally Legalizable but very very clear, and get a couple of Deep Blue State Legislatures to adopt and call for it. And then work at getting more and more support. We could even pre-empt hostile derision by nicknaming it the Mr. Natural Amendment." Or better yet the Mr./Ms. Natural Amendment.

  4. >Thanks for the post.I will study more.I still wonder if a CEO now has two times the free speech rights as a person.One for his individual right and one as a member of a corp.

  5. >Not just CEO. What about the board of directors? What about those corporate boards where one person sits on five different boards?

  6. >I'm not much of a nationalist but even I can see the danger in letting a foreign power take control of a US corporation simply to get their hands on the levers of power in this country.What a bunch of knuckleheads those five guys are. Thomas I can understand.. he's just a bitter old pervert pissed off at the world but the rest of 'em? They think so well of businessmen that the COUNTRY comes second? The lack of imagination and foresight blows my mind. Time to smoke a joint and chill out. 37°52'18s N / 122°16'18s W

  7. >And let us not forget… in many parts of the country judges, District Attorneys and sheriffs are elected officials. Who can not envision the rise of corporate feudal 'estates' — otherwise known as counties or parishes — in some locales. Both The Law *and* the Order working in partnership with the heavy corporate employers of the area, bought and paid for.37°52'18s N / 122°16'18s W

  8. >I'd be fully in favor of that. I also think this is something that could actually be ratified if we could get it through Congress and out to the states. Maybe I'm a bit optimistic.