While that is far from committing to specific amendment language, it is also far from ‘we don’t know.’ The non-silliness of our enterprise is demonstrated by the fact that signatures have been collected to put this question on the ballot in just under half the state.

2. Nobody said anything about stripping First Amendment rights for associations or press. These rights are clearly enunciated by the First Amendment. On the other hand constitutional rights for corporations are not enunciated (A corporation is not a mere association as it only exists by state statute). Quotes from just about every Founder indicate that the Constitution was not intended to protect corporations. Jurisprudence until the last 30 years has followed this intent.

This does not mean that a corporation is not entitled to any rights at all, only that those rights are not protected by the Constitution. The rights of a corporation are to be enshrined in the state charter that brings the corporation into existence. It is up to the state legislature, and by extension the people, to determine what those rights are.

An amendment that strips corporations and associations of all speech and due process rights would be a colossal error. Do you really intend to strip first amendment protections from newspapers?

Numerous debates between Free Speech for People’s Jeff Clements and Rootstriker’s Lawrence Lessig over the Peoples Rights Amendment and Public Financing Amendment illustrate this point exactly. Despite the fact that Jeff and Lawrence are in 99% agreement, a dispute over exact wording puts them at odds and threatens to split the ‘take back democracy’ movement before it even gets off the ground.

Having said that, in my view the proposed ballot question is premature. I think the first step is to define a contemplated solution (for example, the text of a proposed constitutional amendment). I think the ballot questions come after that first step.

Ultimately, Common Cause advocates for public financing of elections, but acknowledge that other regulatory steps need to be taken before arriving at that goal.

Common Cause, along with many other organizations (http://united4thepeople.org/orgs.html), have taken the position that a Constitutional amendment is necessary to definitely affirm that the Constitution protects the rights of human beings, not corporations, and that campaign finance regulation is necessary to level the playing field for truly democratic processes. The exact wording of such an amendment to accomplish such goals is at this moment undefined. Proposals have been put forth (Free Speech for People’s People’s Rights Amendment, http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/7003/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=5624; Professor Lawrence Lessig calls for a public finance amendment), but at this point getting hung up on the exact language only stifles a budding movement that needs space to grow.

As some commentators correctly noted, enormous legislative support is needed for a Constitutional amendment. That means enormous public support is also needed. We must first explain to the people that a Constitutional amendment to the effect explained above is necessary and then from there arrive at the exact wording through the conversation that will follow.

The ballot question seeks to build public and legislative support for a Constitutional amendment movement and jump start the much needed conversation around transnational corporations and wealthy individuals bankrolling our elections and corrupting our policymaking. I urge you to reconsider your apprehensions and join a movement which could define American politics in the 21st century.

Ballot question language:

Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the States may place limits on political contributions and political spending?

Reversing Citizens United is important. It is also a thorny legal and constitutional issue. I note, as daves has observed above, that the proponents of this ballot question do not offer the text of any proposed amendment. In my view, this is an issue where the “cure” might be far worse than the disease.

The first step towards reversing Citizens United must be a specific proposed amendment. Until then, this strikes me as a pointless exercise.