Massachusetts 5th District voters demand
“Free Speech for People, not for Corporations”
In a 2010 decision, the Supreme Court opened the way for unlimited spending by corporations to influence our elections. In June 2011, delegates at the Mass. State Democratic convention, responding to a call by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), and joining town meetings from Provincetown to Great Barrington, voted overwhelmingly to add a “Peoples Rights” resolution to the party’s Action Agenda, calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn “Citizens United”.
This past Thursday night, June 30th, voters from the 5th congressional district (CD5) of Massachusetts met in Acton to learn about the impact of the “Citizens United” decision and about actions they can take to undo this threat to our democracy. The forum, organized by PDA, also served as a reminder to party leaders of the importance of this issue to voters, and the power it could wield in the effort to unseat Scott Brown.
Those attending the forum (sponsored by Progressive Democrats of America – PDA and the Carlisle Democratic Town Committee), heard John Bonifaz (co-founder of Free Speech for People) and state Senator Jamie Eldridge (sponsor of S772 “A Resolution to Restore Free Speech) explain in the clearest terms the dangerous power this decision has given to private corporations to unfairly manipulate elections. “Corporations are NOT people. They have special rights granted by the state, such as limited liability, and unlike a person, they can live forever. They clearly are not people, and are not entitled to the rights granted to people by the constitution.” (Bonifaz)
Some of the strongest comments of the night came from State Representative Cory Atkins. Asking “Where is the outrage?” Rep. Atkins demonstrated how the Citizens United decision threatens not only national elections, explaining how it poses a threat to local government decision making on matters of zoning, community development, and housing as corporations now have the power to influence local elections with only a few thousand dollars in contributions.
In response to the question “What can we do?” Senator Eldridge urged those present to speak out to their friends, co-workers and neighbors; to write their State Representatives urging support for his Resolution to Restore Free Speech; and to write to congresswoman, Niki Tsongas, urging her to support a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United. Citing the example of Granny D., whose walk across America led to passage of important campaign finance laws, Bonifaz challenged those present to commit themselves to this critical effort to protect our democracy.
PDA will be there each step of the way. PDA’s [Amend to Suspend Corporate Personhood Action Group http://www.pdamerica.org/get-active/ag/amend-to-suspend-corporate-personhood-action-group/219] is working on amending the Constitution to eliminate corporate personhood in all its forms. [Join here Join PDA’s Amend to Suspend Corporate Personhood Action Group].
For more information contact PDA CD5 coordinator Michael Gilbreath gildell@mac.com
JimC says
I’m not sure an amendment is the answer. Citizens is such a baffling ruling.
I wonder if we could sue. Say, I have the same speech rights as a corporation, so I can manufacture Coca-Cola T-shirts and sell them, right? If corporations are entitled to the same rights as people, then they aren’t entitled to their rights as corporations (like trademark protection). There has to be be some legal way to challenge this absurdity.
David says
Trademark protection isn’t limited to corporations. You can come up with a spiffy logo and trademark it, if you want to.
JimC says
But there’s got to be something. Maybe we can apply for certain corporate tax breaks?
Peter Porcupine says
Just like if you have kids, you qualify for that tax break, too!
You have the right to manufacture widgets now – do so as a self-employed person, if you choose not to incorporate. I cannot think of a right that corporations have that you do not – and apparently, neither can you. What CU did was to extend a right you alredy enjoy – free speech – to corporations as well.
The ruling did not alter or suspend the rights of citizens and individuals to speak, so I’m curious what there is to ‘restore’. Speech and ideas are not a limited commodity, so granting a right to another does not take yours away.
Or is this really about supressing speech?
And, as always in the ‘be careful what you wish for’ department, rememer that CU affected labor organizations as well, so Eldridge’s campaign to muzzle the speech of assembled workers should be opposed.
JimC says
Is there not something perverse in granting personhood to non-persons?
I don’t want to remove their rights, I want to highlight the absurdity of the argument. They now have a right we don’t — unlimited campaign spending. I have that right on my own campaign (Don’t worry), but they have it on all campaigns.
Peter Porcupine says
I have long been annoyed by the contradictory tenets of campaign finance law.
Courts have ruled that we cannot cap expenditure by campaigns (my personal favorite form of campaign reform), as that violates free speech. But supression of free speech is Ok with a cap on donated amounts. Either EVERYBODY should be limited to the $2,300/$500 levels, or nobody should. Treatment should be equal. FTR, I have long been a fan of unlimted contribution coupled with the absolute transparancy of DAILY on-line reporting.
BTW – if your intent is to ‘highlihgt absurdity’, you need to indicate that somewhere. PDA and Eldridge are putting this forward as serious ideas, and absurdity is lost upon them.
Michael Gilbreath says
No need to get insulting “porcupine”!
This is not an effort to supress the speech of people, rather it is an attempt to undo the current court’s interpretation that the first amendment somehow applies to entities that are not people, i.e. corporations. Corporations are artificial constructs of state law, granted special rights that people do not have. There is no attempt to prevent owners of corporations, whether individuals or shareholders from speaking out; there is no attempt to keep workers (union or non-union) from speaking out either on behalf of or in opposition to their employers. But a corporation is none of those, and granting them “free speech” is tantamount to saying that my dog has free speech rights, or my car does. That is the absurdity of the CU decision. It has granted to a THING rights that our constitution grants to PEOPLE.
The under pinnings of this decision go back to Justice Powell before he was a justice and the US Chamber of Commerce wanted to un-do the various pieces of environmental legislation that were being passed in the 70s, and now they have succeeded. In my heart I like to believe that vast wealth in support of undemocratic ideas, or policies that hurt the “people” will always be trumped by the intelligence of the voting public, and the good intentions of legislators who really are in office because they care. But a clear-eyed view of reality suggests that this is not often the case, so I believe that we must be vigilant to assure that the “playing field” is level.
Peter Porcupine says
.
Michael Gilbreath says
The impact on unions was one of my original concerns. But keep in mind that except in rare cases, corporations have and spend substantially more on political campaigns than unions do. One of the key resources that unions do have that corporations mostly don’t is “people power”. The ability to get feet on the ground whether for canvassing, envelope stuffing, phone calling etc., and “citizens” has no impact on those resources, though it does make it easier for corporations to pay for those “feet”.
Also, as envisioned by Free Speech for People, the amendment would only effect corporations, there is nothing that requires a union to seek state sanction through incorporation. They could remain as simple “Associations” and then the amendment would not apply.
sue-kennedy says
United States v United Auto Workers lead the way to overturning the ban on corporate political expenditures. Its always a mistake to believe that we can extend rights to a “thing” we like and not see a “thing” we disagree with might take advantage of the same rights.
When considering policy try switching one group or person for another and see if it still sounds the same.
Fairness dictates equal treatment. Its either all or none.
Peter Porcupine says
They can compel members to pay dues which are used as political donations, although corporations cannot exact similar monies from employees.
It is the financial power of unions that place them into the same class as corporations.
David says
False. That is precisely what unions cannot do. From a group with which you are no doubt sympathetic, the “National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation“:
There are times when unions violate that rule. In those cases, enforcement action is appropriate. But don’t pretend that the rules aren’t what they are.
Peter Porcupine says
What about Federal campaigns? Did MA labor unions donate to Coakley for Senate? Because if they did, my dues were used and no written consent was asked for. Not to mention State level.
David says
You know as well as I do that unions, like corporations, may not use money in their treasuries to donate directly to federal political campaigns. That is why they set up PACs, which in turn donate to campaigns. And members may, but do not have to, contribute to the PAC. (At least, I hope you knew that. Otherwise, you don’t really know much about this subject.)
Of course, both unions and corporations may now use treasury money for independent expenditures. You can thank your team’s Supreme Court nominees for that one.
sue-kennedy says
get their money from the labor of the workers.
SomervilleTom says
I still remember my astonishment, in 1989, when I learned just how easy it is to become a “Corporation”. We live in an economy optimized for corporations, and one strategy for dealing with that is to learn how swim in the water that surrounds us.
As one trivial example, credit card debt is not tax-deductible for individuals. It is tax-deductible for corporations. Corporate credit cards for “small businesses” are easy to get (they are secured by the owner), and — voila — all fees associated with that card (along with almost everything purchased with it) are tax-deductible.
I actually think JimC has pointed out a potentially VERY creative approach to addressing the Citizen’s United ruling. Virtually every citizen can form a personal Chapter-S corporation (non-citizens can use an LLC) or Limited-Liability Corporation (LLC). Choose a suitably broad definition of “business purpose”, and then declare all your income as company income.
Doesn’t the resulting entity gain ALL the benefit of the Citizens United ruling?
chrismatth says
President Obama appoints the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the head of the IRS. The Commissioner, along with the Treasury Secretary, have some control over how tax law is enforced. We need to start pressuring the Commissioner, Treasury Secretary, and President to prevent corporations from being able to deduct their political contributions.
Why should they get to spend millions on political causes and lower their tax liability at the same time? (Look, ma! A double entendre!)
On a side note, the best call I made all tax year was to a wealthy gentleman who donated $1,500 to Scott Brown and was trying to deduct it.
chrismatth says
That should say “tax season” – also, btw, I work at an accounting firm.
Peter Porcupine says
Nor should they be. Really, Chris, a corporation would have to be pretty stupid to throw up a bid red audit flag like that, and would deserve an audit if they did so.
But since the question is hypothetical at this point, I wouldn’t think that a routine warning to corporations would be needed. Unless they hope to entrap small corporations?
chrismatth says
First off, to clarify, while I said political contributions I meant electioneering expenditures allowed by Citizens United.
After some further research, I found a post confirming that they still cannot deduct these expenses post Citizens United. The post does, however, point out that the issue of deducting these expenses was not covered in the Citizens United ruling.
I’m relieved that my hypothetical won’t come to be, but I wouldn’t be shocked to learn of corporations lobbying for a change with the cover of it to being an ordinary and necessary business expense.
roarkarchitect says
“As one trivial example, credit card debt is not tax-deductible for individuals. It is tax-deductible for corporations. Corporate credit cards for “small businesses” are easy to get (they are secured by the owner), and — voila — all fees associated with that card (along with almost everything purchased with it) are tax-deductible”
Credit card purchases are no different than cash purchases. Every line item has to go into the proper expense category. Some are deductiable some are not, same as cash.
SomervilleTom says
Purchases that are reasonably related to business expenses most certainly are tax deductible. For many sole proprietors like me, that ends being most expenses. Technology spending (hardware and software), software subscription fees, publications, etc., etc., etc.
Of course the business card has to be used for business purposes. My point is that too many sole proprietors don’t realize how much of their out-of-pocket spending is, in fact, for business purposes and how easy it is to make all that tax deductible.
roarkarchitect says
But you don’t create a corporation and just magically deduct your expenses. If you have a consulting business you will also pay 13.3% Social Security and a $500.00 yearly fee to the State of Massachusetts just for existing.
SomervilleTom says
All of this is true, and beside the point.
The point is that a twenty-something programmer who is out of work who starts doing hourly programming to keep the rent paid will usually see a dramatic improvement in her tax situation by incorporating as an S-corporation or LLC. Meanwhile, it seems to me tha the Citizens United decision gives that programmer a means to give as much as she wants to whomever she wants.
For better or worse, it effectively ends limits on personal campaign contributions.
SomervilleTom says
The trouble with cash is that it is tedious to keep proper records, especially proper records that withstand even casual scrutiny from third parties (the IRS is not the only third party that might care).
A business credit card, on the other hand, provides its own audit trail with minimal attention.
rmsol82013 says
Im not familar with statutory langue in ma even though i live here, but i work in Ct and all your bus purpose has to state is “any lawful business activity” if i knew about corporations when i was 18 i would get a tax return that dwarfs my personal debt and i got alotta debt.
chrismatth says
a more legalese version of “any business activity” is quite common among our clients.
daves says
Can someone please post the proposed amendment?
Michael Gilbreath says
You can find one form of it here:
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/7003/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=5624
Keep in mind that this language is “suggested”.
You can find the specifics of Sen. Eldridge’s resolution (S772) in support of such an amendment here:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00772
daves says
I think the wording goes to far, especially with regard to property rights. Corporate entities are a way for individuals to collectively hold property. I think this amendment might allow government confiscation of corporate property without fair compensation. I cannot support that.
sue-kennedy says
You just made that up!
People still have rights. Each individually and collectively to that property. Under this Amendment they still do…..Its just the property that will no longer have rights.
Corporations existed and did business before the Supreme Court found them to be people. Even before this determination, their ability to over power the rights of people and derail democracy concerned our countries leaders.
daves says
I don’t understand your response.
sue-kennedy says
Huh? There is no wording with regard to property rights. This amendment puts corporations in the exact position out founding fathers envisioned, before the 1886 Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad decision.