From Stark
Via a Facebook post, U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen has announced co-sponsorship of H.J. Res 90, which would roll back the wide-ranging political rights of corporations as recognized under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
H.J. Res 90 would “expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.”
Larsen’s Facebook post says: “I am usually wary about amending the Constitution because it is such a strong document. However, when individual rights are being diluted, strengthening those rights is the only remedy. That is why I am cosponsoring the House version of Senator Bernie Sanders’s amendment (H.J. Res. 90) to overturn the Citizen’s United decision. Corporations are not individuals and should not have political rights of individuals.”
Larsen’s Facebook announcement was getting praise from Bellingham and Whatcom County individuals who are generally less than enthusiastic about the 2nd District Democrat.
If he did not include unions too, shows him to be a hypocrite, IMHO!
Is it about buying elections or who buys elections?
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
I don’t often get excited about Rick Larsen’s legislative priorities, but he’s spot on with this. Good on him. Also a good reason to vote against John Koster next year, given that he believes strongly (and wrongly) that a corporation has the same rights as an individual person.
When this legislation contains all unions and special interest groups then you might actually have something. This is a stunt to steal an election. Shows how the liberals are dishonest at every turn. Hey Rick, how about you sponsor the real vehicle and amend the constitution for term limits!
“…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.”
“Via a Facebook post” ??? That is weak. Rick is just trying for a little street cred by sponsoring something he knows has no chance in he11 of passing. [Legal precedent, conservative court, etc.]
If corporations are a “person”, they should be subject to execution if they commit a grievous wrong. I can think of several that should be on death row.
Good on you, Rick. God bless.
Of course our useless representative will be including Unions in his bill………..
Howls of derisive laughter!
I will keep repeating myself: Only persons registered to vote should be eligible to make campaign contributions. Independent expenditure political advertising should be subject to full donor disclosure – including unions.
If voting is the foundation of democracy,we should reserve the electoral process for qualified electors.
to AFY and LyndenBob :
unions simply MUST be made up of many people, or they would not have any money to throw around. A corporation could be just one really rich guy circumventing campaign maximums.
If the suppression of political speech is good for the private sector it is good for the unions. This just shows that Rick Larsen is not well versed at all in the United States Constitution and that his entire goal is political expediency and advantage at the cost of our freedoms. Appalling.
The lack of education on a corporation is most amusing, this nation that began from 13 Colonial Corporations, who had a bit of trouble with political campaign funding from the Crown.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0017_0518_ZO.html
Is the issue equality, justice, and fairness or tilting the playing field; when you start having favoritism based on weak reasoning like RM’s (how many people own stock in GE for example? or do you think those who run unions represent everyone views in that union?) you are just making excuses to support whatever bias one may have.
There should be no exceptions, for profit or non profit, non union or union, etc etc because exceptions are only loopholes that truckloads of money get delivered thru.
What is good for the goose is also good for the gander!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Who was this Webster arguing for his college corporation, back when education, was education, and politicians never had a clue, yesterday, today and tommrow!
Chief Justice John Marshall, George Washington’s Favorite, at Vally Forge.
“The title of the plaintiffs originates in a charter dated the 13th day of December, in the year 1769, incorporating twelve persons therein mentioned, by the name of “The Trustees of Dartmouth College,” granting to them and their successors the usual corporate privileges and powers, and authorizing the Trustees, who are to govern the college, to fill up all vacancies which may be created in their own body.”
Walter: this is not a mere law. they are trying to start the constitutional amendment process to overturn the Citizens United decision.
AFY, I like some of your logic.
If a union or corporation could only :
1. spend in proportion to the number of members / shareholders
and
2. require a more direct consensus of the members, rather than the decisions just being made by a CEO or small leadership committee
…then I think that would be more in line with both your and my concerns, no?
My concern is that you either have something that is fair that effects all sides equally or nothing (which is fair, because it’s effects all sides equally)!
But the really hard thing to imagine in the first place is anything that politicians would be doing that is not tilted to help insure their own re-election, especially career guys like Rick.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
I don’t support putting limits on free speech on any side of the aisle. I do support making unions, both public and private sector, collect the dues themselves, directly from the members.
i hear that there will be an initiative on the ballot to relieve the state of the burden of collecting dues for public sector unions.
“Larsen’s Facebook post says: “I am usually wary about amending the Constitution because it is such a strong document. However, when individual rights are being diluted, strengthening those rights is the only remedy. ”
My cynicism meter just pegged.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just repeal the First Amendment?
First amendment means that no particular point of view should be outlawed.
Doesn’t make slander legal. Doesn’t make child pornography legal.
Doensn’t mean that you can yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.
Shouldn’t mean that elections should have no guidelines or limits.
A candidate can spend their own billion dollars, if the source of the money is made clear to the public, so they will not mistake that show of money to mean that the candidate was more widely popular than they actually are. The money spent on a campaign should be at least somewhat proportional to how many individuals have committed support to that campaign. More people like Huckabee, more total donations come to Huckabee.
This candidate brought to you exclusively 100% by Walmart? No thanks.
To some RM it’s Walmart to others it’s SEIU, IMHO special interests are special interests and should all be treated the same, one way or the other.
And inside the beltline today the special interest rules, either we get what we got or we change it, but fairness require all or none IMHO and it will take a constitutional amendment if it to be all. None is pretty much what we have now.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!