Rights & Democracy (RAD) and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) host a community forum with guest speaker Greg Coleridge, Outreach Director of the Move to Amend campaign.
A great victory yesterday in Toledo with voters passing a citizen-driven ballot initiative calling for a Lake Erie Bill of Rights…although I hope good friend Mike Ferner fully recovers from emergency surgery.
This as well as other past initiatives (though in much smaller communities) seeks to establish not that natural living “persons,” but natural living “bodies” have inalienable rights — certainly over corporate “rights.”
Inalienable rights mean basic freedoms, needs and abilities exist via birth. They are not conferred by others, the state or other institutions. States/government can affirm or deny such rights, but they can’t fundamentally prevent their existence. Community institutions, be they public or private, don’t have inalienable rights because they don’t inherently exist but are human created. Applied to natural bodies as I see it, Lake Erie is deserving of far more inherent protection because it came into existence over eons “naturally” vs, say, a human made lake in the middle of a housing development that someone may want to fill in to build on top of.
It’s all new ground, yet very old ground if one subscribes to Native American religious/spiritual tradition concerned the sacredness of all life. How all this legally plays out in our “civilized” world where for centuries we’ve treated nature as little more than a resource for plunder to serve (wo)man — believing that we are atop all life forms — is unknown. However, it’s finally starting to sink in that our “ecos” (greek for house — be it natural, “ECOsystem,” or commercial, “ECOnomy”) are profoundly unsustainable. We need a new consciousness — in a damn hurry. As has often been the case in the past, changed laws (including constitutions) and changed cultures go hand in hand.
It’s the end of the beginning. Onward!
Introduction and remarks begins at about the 18:30 mark.
Conducted in Des Moines, Iowa on December 6.
by Greg Coleridge
The midterm elections are over. Candidates have been elected and unelected. Ballot issues have been passed and rejected.
What hasn’t changed one iota, however, are the catastrophic harms to people, communities, the natural world and our republican form of self-government caused by the assertion of constitutional rights for corporations, and by political campaign money being defined as First Amendment-protected free speech.
Many believe these problems began with the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United v FEC decision. It’s true that Citizens United further opened the monetary floodgates onto political elections. The Court asserted that the First Amendment’s free speech clause prohibits government restrictions of “independent expenditures” for political communications by for-profit corporations, nonprofit corporations, labor unions and other groups.
Since the Supreme Court had previously ruled that corporations were “persons” with free speech rights, corporate funds could now be raised in unlimited sums for “independent” communication (i.e. candidate advertisements by entities that are not coordinated with the candidate). A separate federal court decision based on Citizens United lifted the same legal restrictions on individuals.
The result has frequently been stomach-turning attack ads from across the ideological spectrum that distort the truth about candidates and issues. In addition, when money determines who has access to the podiums, microphones and loudspeakers in an arena, the voices of people and groups without money are relegated to the hallways, basements and back alleys.
The $200 million-plus spent on the Illinois governor’s race, much of it from the wealthy candidates themselves, typifies further movement away from a republican form of self-government and towards a plutocracy (i.e. rule of, by and for the wealthy). Corporate spending on election advertising in Illinois and elsewhere, much of it untraceable “dark money,” represents a second parallel threat—corptocracy (i.e. rule of, by and for corporations).
More than reversing Citizens United is needed to create fair and democratic elections and more than fair and democratic elections are needed to create a legitimate republican form of self-government in which We the People rule.
Our government is broken because the system is fixed—as in rigged to benefit the super-wealthy and corporations. The core problems are the constitutional “rights” anointed by the Supreme Court on corporations and on money spent in elections—both of which predate Citizens United.
Corporations weren’t intended by this nation’s founders to become the governing institution in our country and world. Corporations are creations of government, originally chartered one at a time by legislative acts, which listed specific legal protections and privileges to create useful goods and services, but not with inalienable constitutional rights. Corporate charters were democratic instruments. Corporations that violated their charter provisions regularly had those charters revoked by state legislatures or state courts. We the People were sovereign, corporate creations of the state were subordinate.
No corporation was immune, even the most powerful ones. A Republican state Attorney General sought to revoke Standard Oil Corporation’s charter in 1892 for disregarding its provisions.
The Ohio Supreme Court, in a 1900 ruling to dissolve a dairy company, stated: “The time has not yet arrived when the created is greater than the creator, and it still remains the duty of the courts to perform their office in the enforcement of the laws, no matter how ingenious the pretexts for their violation may be, nor the power of the violators in the commercial world.”
Corporations worked strategically to shift democratic control over to the corporate form in three ways: from the state to the federal level, from the legislative arena to regulatory agencies, and from the legislative arena to the courts. All three strategies sought to move corporate definition beyond the reach of the public and, thus, undermine our republican form of self-government.
The most effective approach was to shield corporate actions by the Supreme Court. Despite the Constitution not mentioning corporations and the Bill of Rights meant to solely apply to human beings, corporate attorneys argued that constitutional rights applied to their clients. Activist Supreme Courts agreed and concocted for over a century corporate constitutional rights out of thin air.
Corporate constitutional rights now include First Amendment free speech and religion, Fourth Amendment freedom from search and seizure, Fifth Amendment freedom from takings, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection, and Commerce and Contracts Clause “rights.”
These never-intended rights have allowed corporations to hijack our republican form of self-government well beyond influencing elections through their “right” to make political donations. These include the rights:
- to advertise dangerous products (i.e. cigarettes and fracking) over the objections of communities and to avoid labeling genetically modified foods;
- to avoid subpoenas that would compel testimony about unlawful trade and price fixing, and the right to prevent citizens, communities and regulatory agencies from stopping pollution and other assaults on people or communities;
- to receive compensation when regulations are established to protect homeowners or communities, including the right to be compensated for all possible future profits they may have made without such regulations;
- to build chain stores and erect cell towers against the will of communities, oppose tax and other public policies favoring local businesses over multinational corporations and resist democratic efforts to prevent corporate mergers and revoke corporate charters through citizen initiatives; and
- to ship toxic waste between states over the “health, safety, and welfare” objections of communities – claiming the waste isn’t actually “waste” but “commerce.”
Corporate constitutional rights are just one head of our anti-democratic hydra. The other is the constitutional protection of political money defined as free speech. This dates to the 1976 Buckley v Valeo decision. If money is political speech, as the Supreme Court stated, then those with the most money have the most speech. This is not an ingredient for anything approaching a republican form of self-government, more likely for a plutocracy.
No presidential decree, legislative statute or regulation can end corporate constitutional rights and money defined as free speech. The only solution is a constitutional amendment.
Move to Amend is a national non-partisan coalition of hundreds of organizations and over 450,000 individuals committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests.
It calls for the We the People Amendment (H.J.R. 48) to the Constitution, declaring that inalienable rights belong to human beings only, not to mere legal entities, and that money is not a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and can be regulated in political campaigns. Sixty-five U.S. House Representatives have endorsed H.J.R. 48. It will soon be introduced in the U.S. Senate. More than 750 communities have passed either local or state resolutions or ballot measures calling for such an Amendment.
Building an authentically multicultural, intergenerational and transpartisan grassroots democracy movement is the only realistic route toward this end. This currently seems pie-in-the-sky. Yet we’re now facing profound political, economic, social and environmental crises. None of this is sustainable. Limits are rapidly being reached. What seems impossible at the moment can quickly become inevitable. Our visions have been repressed by our dominant culture about what is doable, realistic and inevitable – not to mention what is just, democratic and sustainable.
A Move to Amend-sponsored public program recently took place in Champaign-Urbana. There’s interest in exploring what can be done locally to join this growing national movement. If interested in joining this exploration, contact Doug Jones at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Greg Coleridge is Outreach Director at Move to Amend. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
No, President Trump can’t end birthright citizenship via Presidential decree. But the Supreme Court could if they got disgustingly creative with the 14th Amendment.
It’s happened before.
The Supremes in the late 19th century bought the original argument by corporate attorneys that the world “person” contained in the 14th Amendment was originally penned as “citizen,” but changed to “person” to cover corporations. The 14th Amendment architects all along had intended to apply the 14th’s Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses to not only freed slaves but also to business corporations. This was the argument promoted with a straight face by Roscoe Conkling, counsel for a railroad corporation angling to be shielded with the same constitutional rights as human persons to avoid having to pay higher taxes. Conkling, by the way, was the last person (and maybe the only person) to turn down a Supreme Court appointment after he had been nominated and confirmed. The reason was he wanted to make more money as a corporate attorney.
We the People have ever since been on the short end of the slew of corporate constitutional rights that have hijacked our representative democracy with High Court decisions overturning scores of democratically enacted laws and regulations protecting workers, consumers, communities and the environment.
What’s to stop the anti-justice, extreme right-wing majority on the current Supreme Court from coming up with some wild rationale today to give Trump what he wants? Who knows what they could come up. Not to give them any ideas, but corporations chartered abroad are in the eyes of US law deemed “alien” corporations. Maybe the Supremes might say children of “illegal aliens” are in fact “aliens” themselves, which are different enough from “persons” to disqualify them from birthright citizenship.
I’d like to think this is completely far fetched and way beyond the reach of the possible. But we are dealing, after all, with an institution that has time and again over 130 years anointed a bunch of legal documents, which is pretty much what corporations are, as possessing the same Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment and other never-intended inalienable constitutional rights as human beings. Take into account the hostility of the majority on the current High Court to cases addressing any number of human rights, and what may seem far fetched is definitely within the realm of possibility.
Of course, what can stop such consideration cold if such an effort become serious is seriously massive organizing and demonstrations in defense of human rights.
That, too, has happened before and helped to deter the worst inclinations of the Supreme Court to protect and promote property rights over human rights.