'Corporations are Not People' Constitutional Amendment

[Frodo]

In the unhappily but unsurprisingly unlikely event that this amendment makes it out of Congress and reaches the states, how would you vote on the following amendment as currently worded under Sen. Bernie Sander's bill?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARTICLE—

SECTION 1.

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

SECTION 2.

Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

SECTION 3.

Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

SECTION 4.

Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Definitely no.  As written this discriminates against certain types of organizations.  Of course it would be funny if this were adopted and the Supreme Court held that this covers labor unions and the like.  But no, what is not needed is muzzling corporations, but sunshine.

[Franzl]

No

[Link]

Definitely no.  As written this discriminates against certain types of organizations.  Of course it would be funny if this were adopted and the Supreme Court held that this covers labor unions and the like.  But no, what is not needed is muzzling corporations, but sunshine.

Why would that be funny?  You wouldn't want corporate and union money out of politics?  Makes sense to me.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, but I voted yes by mistake.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Definitely no.  As written this discriminates against certain types of organizations.  Of course it would be funny if this were adopted and the Supreme Court held that this covers labor unions and the like.  But no, what is not needed is muzzling corporations, but sunshine.

Why would that be funny?  You wouldn't want corporate and union money out of politics?  Makes sense to me.

Because I strongly doubt Bernie Sanders wants union money out of politics, that's why.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Definitely no.  As written this discriminates against certain types of organizations.  Of course it would be funny if this were adopted and the Supreme Court held that this covers labor unions and the like.  But no, what is not needed is muzzling corporations, but sunshine.

Why would that be funny?  You wouldn't want corporate and union money out of politics?  Makes sense to me.

Because I strongly doubt Bernie Sanders wants union money out of politics, that's why.

I've liked his page on Facebook; he gave two polls recently (one on corporate money limits, one on union money limits). The union one was a little closer, but in both cases the vast majority said that corporate/union money needs limits. Therefore, I'd say he's more consistent on the issue. He's undeniably one of the most principled members of Congress, along with Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Dennis Kucinich, etc.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"rights protected by the Constitution" is imprecise, since the term "rights" doesn't appear very much, but the concept is more pervasive.  Can rights apply to businesses, churches, civic organizations, political entities, etc?  The argument that they wouldn't makes sense (in theory), but it would push aside a lot of precedent.

[SmugDealer]

I would be in favor of a much simpler amendment:

''The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and extend exclusively to natural persons.''

From there, the right answers can mostly be derived.

[Modernity has failed us]

No (I)

[muon2]

I think this is a much more complicated issue than the simple phrase "Corporations are not People". Since the trust busters of the early 20th century the federal government has tried to draw a line that limits excessive influence by large corporations. Restricting direct contributions to candidates has generally been a line that can be drawn and defended. Restricting any participation in the electoral process, even in specific circumstances, is a tough call.

The first amendment includes freedoms of speech and association among its provisions. When a group of people form an association and choose to engage in political speech that would seem to be a protected activity. Tax laws tend to drive associations of people into some corporate form. Even small not-for-profit clubs sometimes have little choice but to form a corporation to compete for donations. When does the amount of profit become so great that it impinges on a fair electoral process and demand the freedoms of speech and association be curtailed? I don't see a clear way to draw a line. As a further complication, what if a large corporation is held by a single individual shareholder?

The first amendment also includes freedom of the press, and in the 21st century the internet is going to make the definition of the press less clear than ever. If a corporation emails a newsletter or runs a blog it gets difficult to draw a distinction between that activity and more traditional activities of the press. A newspaper can run a political endorsement editorial at any time during a campaign, and that newspaper is generally a corporation. How does one distinguish between that and a corporate blog that regularly reports on news affecting that corporation but happens to editorialize in the weeks immediately before an election? I find that hard to answer, too.