Thanks jeffc for the steer … I don’t know the merits of this particular bill among the several constitutional amendments offered as an antidote to the Citizens United ruling; David probably has some thoughts. But here’s local hero Rep. Jim McGovern on the People Rights Amendment, which states that Corporations Are Not People:
Here’s the text:
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 15, 2011
Mr. MCGOVERN introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
‘Article–
‘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. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do 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, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.’.
is one of the best representatives in Congress, hands down, and he is spot-on in his criticism of Citizens United.
However, I don’t think this particular amendment is the best vehicle to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision. Remember that it is the same Supreme Court that handed down Citizens United that will have the opportunity to interpret any future constitutional amendment. Because it is fairly vague (and because a court could choose to emphasize Section 3 over Section 2) I’m not sure this language would prevent a future court from striking down campaign finance statutes. I’m also not sure how this would affect other corporations beyond the obvious intent of the amendment (for example, the New York Times or the NAACP).
I much prefer an amendment that more or less explicitly overrules Citizens United without the vague language about corporations present in Section 2 of the McGovern amendment. The best I’ve seen so far is the Udall amendment, which I believe David linked to in a previous post.
This proposal has many of the same “unintended consequences” problems as the Sanders amendment. People should really get on board with Udall.