Showing posts with label corporate personhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate personhood. Show all posts

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Introduction: Free, Corporate and Bought Speech

“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.”
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

That’s all the Constitution says about free speech. That’s all the Constitution guarantees. Everything else is determined by Congressional legislation and/or the court’s opinions interpreting the Constitution and the legislation/law. Even many lawyers – so indoctrinated by their years of study of "case law and precedent" – have lost sight of this basic truth. They tend to believe that the "personhood of corporations" and related issues are constitutionally guaranteed. No, these issues are a matter of law and opinion, not the Constitution.

The Soul, the Body and the Heart of the Network

The following few paragraphs are the most important thought behind everything else the Network stands for. It is the reason we created it. This is the fundamental...the foundational reason we cannot loose if we act with sufficient vigor to force our representatives to do what we elected them for. Reread the 1st Amendment above and look for where it mentions anything about money. It doesn't, does it? There is no explicit or implicit link between free speech and money -- none at all. If there is no link or Constitutional guarantee that free speech rights can justify unlimited money being used to control any sector of our society, any and every use of money can be regulated or even outlawed by new legislation. The heart of the legislation we propose will say:

"The Constitution of the United States of America makes no link between free speech and money. In order to fully protect the free speech rights of the individual citizens of our country, the Congress has the absolute right to create legislation to limit or completely eliminate the influence of money to affect any matter of public concern. Any and all prior legislation or court opinions to the contrary are hereby made null and void right now."

We will then continue within this legislation to establish those details and institutions only now made "legal" and protected from any incursion of big money that we the people require of our representatives. We believe the following ideas should be considered:

A publically financed, national elections website which will be freely available to any candidate for public office -- from dog catcher to president -- and public interest campaigns with all the software appropriate to the conduct of elections.

Public financing of elections to level the playing field and allow those who don't have unlimited funds to finance them to run. Establishing very low limits for individual campaign contributions and only from voters in the voting district they would represent.

The ground rules for debates and TV coverage established to provide equal access for all qualified candidates. And much more....




If you care about freeing our country from the control of big money, instill this concept into your mind and have it ready for any conversation you might have. It is rock solid and based in the foundation of our country. Never let anyone argue that our goals are in any way un-American. It just ain't so. We stand for democracy. We stand for the rights of our citizens. We stand against their tyranny. We will not budge.

Do not grant the high ground claiming to stand for the American ideal or values or anything. They are wrong. They are lying and deceiving us to allow them to have the control. We won't stand for it any longer. We will not bend to anything the Tea Party people or the Heritage Foundation or even the Supreme Court says to the contrary.


The public is seething. Some people think the problem is big government. If you really look, you will see that the real problem is the corrupting control of government by big money interests, not government per se: Corporate America controls our government in ways that continue to allow their officers $ Millions in salaries and bonuses at the same time they sell us bogus financial instruments which deplete our retirement funds, force us into bankruptcy, and increase our health insurance costs while they figure out how to eliminate risk and refuse coverage in ways that are producing record profits. From right to left and from bottom to very near the top, we all know this and we’re fed up.

While concern over the power of huge corporations, unions or other organizations to control both the economy and government has been growing for years, it has reached a crescendo from both the right and left following the recent “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision unleashing a new flood of corporate funding which enables them to buy our representative and thus the entire process to a vastly greater degree than before. There is a growing sense on both the right and the left that it is not big government that should concern us, but rather the ability of corporate American to control our government in their own self interest and against the public interest.

There is a growing consensus that this Supreme Court decision must be reversed. Almost everyone who agrees is calling for a Constitutional Amendment to remedy the situation. Most of these voices also only address the one issue relating to the application of the principle of free speech to corporations. This is too narrow a proposed fix to solve the overall problem. When you fix the levy, you have to fix the whole thing.

We strongly disagree on both of these last points. The Constitution requires a long, expensive and difficult process to propose and approve amendments. The framers were wise to make this difficult in order to protect us from a short-term majority easily changing the foundations of our democracy, especially the Bill of Rights protections. However, this tedious process is not necessary in our current situation.

1) We believe the full remedy is possible through the much simpler process of legislation which requires only one majority vote by Congress and it’s a done deal. With the right understanding and political will, we could change the face of how governmental business is done in our country next week. Well, that might be a little optimistic, but…

2) We further believe that the full remedy must include a comprehensive redefinition of all aspects of free speech. Over a period of many years the concept of free speech has become distorted to the point that the intent of the First Amendment has virtually been reversed leaving the American public less free than perhaps at any time in our history. As is, corporations are protected; people are subjected. That’s not the way our founding fathers saw it, nor should we. In a democracy we have the power to change that. If we don’t, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

We will examine each of these distortions and propose the legislation we believe is necessary to fully guarantee the deepest meaning of free speech for our citizens which underlay the very foundations of our representative democracy. Anything less will necessarily leave the door open for the corrupting influence of big money to again virtually control our economy and government as it does now.


Contact us: WeDontHaveFreeSpeech@outlook.com

p.s. If you want to read or share our complete introductory series and other blog posts about this and other issues,  see our Annotated Table of Contents below. Or if you have questions or comments, email us.     


Annotated Table of Contents

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/sign-the-pledge-big-out?source=c.em&r_by=14960502
Insist candidates vote for a single act of Congress stating: “There is no relationship between speech and money stated or implied in the US Constitution and therefore no such relationship exists” as the basis of further reforms to limit the abuses of Big Money interests.
Best summary of the proposed “Recover our Democracy Act;” its Constitutional basis; removing purported legal objections, public financing of elections, limits on campaign contributions, public funding of federal elections, preprogrammed campaign website, redefining a bribe and much more
Cut and paste text to share by electronic media to spread the word on our plan
Our appointment being ignored while lobbyists immediately enter our Congressman’s office
Being on the outside: Explaining the meaning of our logo…the corrupting influence of Big Money
Political contributions, Citizens United Supreme Court Decision,  “We don’t have free speech. We can’t afford it,” our solution is an act of Congress,
 “Backdoor money in politics, quid pro quo,  “anything of material value offered or given to, or received and accepted by any candidate, incumbent or governmental employee under any circumstance shall be defined as a bribe,” penalties defined for candidates and government employees.
Our early commentaries: Free speech is fundamental to democracy, different views, uses and limitations of free speech, public financing of elections, fair and balanced media coverage

Original free speech: freedom to speak our mind,  power to “buy” both the “content” and the “delivery” of “free” speech,  "personhood" of corporations, Supreme Court and  Citizens United, ownership of the media, points of view,  political advertising, educational content, bought speech,…

Trickle down economics, tax reductions, income disparity, deregulation, power by changing belief systems, abuses, distortions and lies, is it regulation or just bad regulation?, affording governmental programs and high taxes, millennia of struggle by the rich to retain control vs. democracy,

 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed Citizens United

Humans speaking their mind without fear, means of extending the reach of speech [meida], bought speech, literally “free” speech decoupled from money, power of the media, corporate personhood, limitations of free speech, campaigns and political speech, alternative communications for elections: public financing, freedom of the Internet….
Figures on campaign contributions given by largest lobbying corporations [6+ years old = pre Supepr PACs]
One of our earliest posts:We don't have free speech that has meaningful access to our own representatives. Our logo, our slogan, our chants, young adults, spreading the word on the Internet, Obama’s election, making videos,
Largely unedited, free associated ideas on framing the legislation
Free public website designed and formatted to conduct campaigns for office and public issues , FEC provided bank account, and credit cards , campaign accounting system and regulations, partial design specifications, real time public review access…
the most logical public space to allow the free flow of information on issues of public interest
understanding the power of corporations as a means of amassing power and money, the founding fathers originally rejected the existence of corporations,” corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution and have no protected rights; therefore, Congress may limit or abolish corporations as deemed necessary for the public good. Growth of corporate power, personhood of corporations and personal rights attributed to corporations , theory of 14th amendment [due process] applies to corporations,
 

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Definitions Relevant to "Free Speech"

There are a number of issues involved in understanding “Free speech” as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. They all involve distortions of the original intent. If the reforms necessary at this point in our history are to be effective, all of the following must be considered in determining the solution. Many of the following points are often missed in the discussion of solving the problems arising out of misunderstandings of free speech.

1) As conceived by the framers of the Constitution free speech means individual persons’ [human beings] right to be able to speak one’s mind without fear of interference or reprisal by the government. There is little doubt that this is their clear intention. Everything that follows must follow logically from that premise and nothing else. Understanding and protecting this right legitimately allows both positive and negative inferences which can be directly drawn from the basic right – that is what is protected and what is disallowed in order to protect the positive intent of the 1st Amendment.

2) Throughout our history, having no other options within our immediate control, the average citizen’s “free speech” is almost entirely limited in practice to being heard by those who are literally close enough to hear our voices. The wealthy on the other hand are able reach out to the entire nation and into the pockets of our representatives through the application of unlimited funds not available to the average citizen. This speech at least implies the following understandings:

3) Free speech as it was intended is not tied to any economic understanding involving the cost of determining the content of and/or delivering the speech. That concept is not in the Constitution. This is, in fact, “bought” speech in the economic sense of purchasing power, and has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment protection. While this is not the common understanding of this issue, it is a reasonable understanding of the Constitution itself freed from case law and opinion.

4) That is, the Constitution does not guarantee a right to spend money in either unlimited or unregulated ways –
[a] not by individuals and
[b] not by corporations.

This is the key point to understand that most people and organizations miss. We need to uncouple the concept of money in relationship to free speech altogether. Once this step is taken, the regulation of campaign finance, campaign ads, centralized media control,...all the issues surrounding free speech other than a citizen's right can be controled through legislation.

5) If anything, the First Amendment clearly implies that money should not be allowed to have more influence on public opinion or our representatives than a citizen’s right to speak his mind freely. It is, after all, the citizens who vote, not corporations.

6) Extending free speech to protect the public from Corporate Media Control

The next understanding requires an historical perspective: At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were no means of mass communication whereby one person or group could significantly control the means by which speech was communicated and therefore the ability to control the content of what is communicated [censorship]. This being the case, our founders also did not see the possibility of any entity other than government with its powers of enforcement which could make censorship a danger.

This remained substantially true until the last few decades as corporate interests began to buy and merge the media in all of its current forms – print, analog, telecommunications transmitted by wire, wireless or optical fiber, phone networks, broadcast, cable, broadband, satellite and now the Internet itself…things unimagined and yet to come... Centralization of ownership makes it possible for a mere handful of companies `
[a] to write and produce and
[b] therefore control the program content and context,
[c] choose the personalities who convey the information and the point of
. view they convey and
[d] own or control the communication link which carries the content.

That's too much power. Corporations now have the dangerous ability to control every aspect of the information through which the public is informed so completely that they are able to determine the basis on which public opinion and policy are formed. In this light, the definitions regarding theFirst Amendment need to be revised so that no individual or entity of any kind be allowed to have sufficient control over the content or delivery of speech in any venue to become a threat to the foundations of our democracy.

7) Corporate Personhood

The next issue revolves around the definition of corporate “personhood.” Since the founding of our nation, legislation has defined corporations as "persons" for rational and necessary business reasons concerning such issues as the right to sue and to be sued, to enter into contracts, own property, etc. Over time, laws and court opinions have extended the definitions. For instance, it has been argued that the “due process” protections of the 14th Amendment apply to corporations. We do not agree. That is a matter of opinion derived from definitions determined by law and opinion, not the Constitution itself. It uses a contrived distortion of the First Amendment in order to apply the 14th Amendment to corporations.

At the same time it should be understood that there have always been limits to the recognition of the personhood of corporations. For instance, the courts have always acknowledged that corporations cannot marry, vote or hold public office. [Sometimes the Courts arrive at reasonable conclusions. On the other hand, some people who work for large corporations feel like they are married to them.] Thus, it is already established that the personhood of a corporation is not absolute or without legal limits. It is further established that these limits can be established and changed by law and thus supersede any and all opinions of the court. Therefore, the law can and must state that corporate personhood shall not extend to the right of free speech or to enjoy constitutional protection.

8) Corporate free speech: In the recent Supreme Court Decision in the Citizens United case the “personal right of free speech” was specifically extended to corporations changing over a century of law and opinion. The effect of this decision is to open the floodgates allowing unlimited corporate funds to be channeled into political campaigns in every form:
[a] campaign contributions,
[b] the purchase of advertisements in support or opposition to political
. campaigns and issues,
[c] to block campaign reforms limiting the amount of contributions and
[d] public financing of elections.

The laws and court opinions are used by big money interests are not protected by the 1st or 14th Amendments.

9) Free speech necessitates campaign finance reforms: The legal and judicial linkage between “corporate” and “bought” speech on the one hand and the constitutionally protected “free speech” on the other have been used to block limitation on that speech. This linkage has been used synergistically to block campaign finance reform including the public financing of elections. Thus, corporations are able to use unlimited ownership and/or funds to influence how people vote in elections on the front end of our democratic process and over how the candidates vote on the back end – and to write this off as business expenses.

10) These redefinitions would allow legislation to totally forbid any political contributions from individuals or corporations. It would allow the definition of any monetary or other inducement offered to and/or accepted by a candidate or incumbent to be on its face the bribe and a criminal act.

11) Since these reforms would eliminate virtually all the corrupting influence of big money which currently finance our election processes, the legislation would need to include at least an outline of new procedures which allow the electoral process and flow of information to be accomplished with the least possible expenditure of money and in ways that guarantee fairness. See our discussion of the Internet per se and its use through a national elections website.

We assert that all of the above issues can be resolved by one simple piece of Congressional legislation stating clearly that the legal definition of corporate personhood shall not apply to the right of free speech and further to break the link between speech and money declaring the right of free speech does not allow either individual or corporations to spend unlimited and unregulated money. These legal definitions will again allow regulation and limitation of both “corporate” and “bought” speech and open the way for meaningful public participation and funding of elections[1] and protections for access to the media.


[1] Note that we have not included the freedom of the Internet in this presentation, but that we feel that it is closely associated with free speech and should be given prompt attention following the passage of this legislation.

Contact us: wedonthavefreespeech@outlook.com
p.s. If you want to read or share our complete introductory series and other blog posts about this and other issues,  see our Annotated Table of Contents below. Or if you have questions or comments, email us.     


Annotated Table of Contents

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/sign-the-pledge-big-out?source=c.em&r_by=14960502
Insist candidates vote for a single act of Congress stating: “There is no relationship between speech and money stated or implied in the US Constitution and therefore no such relationship exists” as the basis of further reforms to limit the abuses of Big Money interests.
Best summary of the proposed “Recover our Democracy Act;” its Constitutional basis; removing purported legal objections, public financing of elections, limits on campaign contributions, public funding of federal elections, preprogrammed campaign website, redefining a bribe and much more
Cut and paste text to share by electronic media to spread the word on our plan
Our appointment being ignored while lobbyists immediately enter our Congressman’s office
Being on the outside: Explaining the meaning of our logo…the corrupting influence of Big Money
Political contributions, Citizens United Supreme Court Decision,  “We don’t have free speech. We can’t afford it,” our solution is an act of Congress,
 “Backdoor money in politics, quid pro quo,  “anything of material value offered or given to, or received and accepted by any candidate, incumbent or governmental employee under any circumstance shall be defined as a bribe,” penalties defined for candidates and government employees.
Our early commentaries: Free speech is fundamental to democracy, different views, uses and limitations of free speech, public financing of elections, fair and balanced media coverage

Original free speech: freedom to speak our mind,  power to “buy” both the “content” and the “delivery” of “free” speech,  "personhood" of corporations, Supreme Court and  Citizens United, ownership of the media, points of view,  political advertising, educational content, bought speech,…

Trickle down economics, tax reductions, income disparity, deregulation, power by changing belief systems, abuses, distortions and lies, is it regulation or just bad regulation?, affording governmental programs and high taxes, millennia of struggle by the rich to retain control vs. democracy,

 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed Citizens United

Humans speaking their mind without fear, means of extending the reach of speech [meida], bought speech, literally “free” speech decoupled from money, power of the media, corporate personhood, limitations of free speech, campaigns and political speech, alternative communications for elections: public financing, freedom of the Internet….
Figures on campaign contributions given by largest lobbying corporations [6+ years old = pre Supepr PACs]
One of our earliest posts:We don't have free speech that has meaningful access to our own representatives. Our logo, our slogan, our chants, young adults, spreading the word on the Internet, Obama’s election, making videos,
Largely unedited, free associated ideas on framing the legislation
Free public website designed and formatted to conduct campaigns for office and public issues , FEC provided bank account, and credit cards , campaign accounting system and regulations, partial design specifications, real time public review access…
the most logical public space to allow the free flow of information on issues of public interest
understanding the power of corporations as a means of amassing power and money, the founding fathers originally rejected the existence of corporations,” corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution and have no protected rights; therefore, Congress may limit or abolish corporations as deemed necessary for the public good. Growth of corporate power, personhood of corporations and personal rights attributed to corporations , theory of 14th amendment [due process] applies to corporations,