KSU/May 4 and the need for action

May4_KSU

Akron Beacon Journal | Letter to the Editor | Greg Coleridge | May 12, 1990
[Note: Tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of the tragedy. Much of what was written 30 years ago remains relevant today.]

The inscription on the new May 4 memorial at Kent State University, “inquire, learn, reflect,’ sends an incomplete and troubling message. The means needed to prevent further U.S military intervention abroad and death to dissenting citizens of these policies at home require more than mere inquiry, leaning and reflection. They require action.

Inquiry, learning and reflection alone have never and will never check abuses of power by governments and corporations. Only through actions like marching, lobbying, writing, boycotting, striking, voting and movement building can governments and corporations be democratized and held accountable for their behavior.

Anyone who believes that social change happens on by inquiry, learning and reflection doesn’t know how power in our society works. If we do nothing, power will become ever more concentrated in the hands of government and corporate “leaders.”

Only through doing – actions, deeds or whatever else you may call it – can we recapture the power that is rightly ours. As Thomas Jefferson said, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

If we don’t act as well as inquire, learn and reflect, two things are certain: More U.S. interventions in Third World nations and violent police actions to quell domestic dissent will take place. And more space and stone will be needed to build more monuments like those honoring the dead in Southeast Asia and Kent State.

The ‘We the People Amendment’ Aims to Fix the Crisis of Corporate Rule

Because corporations are not people and big problems require bold solutions
Jaypal“The ‘We the People Amendment,’ introduced last month by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wa.), write the authors “is authentically grassroots and populist. It is honest, transparent, visionary and anti-establishment. It’s time we tear down our mental walls and act to expand the democratic space that makes possible this and so many other needed constitutional, political, economic and social structural changes.” (Image: Move to Amend)

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/08/we-people-amendment-aims-fix-crisis-corporate-rule

 

‘A drum major for justice’: Lorain city leaders, people of faith share Martin Luther King Jr.’s lessons

mlk program - lorain

http://www.chroniclet.com/Local-News/2019/01/22/Lorain-city-leaders-people-of-faith-share-MLK-39-s-lessons.html?fbclid=IwAR1O8xUNrW6MQtMobAEXAAGVSgSBtIPJFCff3-SC9ssxSdoySHOP7CFHqHQ

Still identified as working for the American Friends Service Committee, despite our program closing almost 2 years ago…

Move to Amend interviews

Conducted in Des Moines, Iowa on December 6.

7 minutes

 

18 minutes

Ohio Democracy/Corporation History Quiz

Excerpted from Citizens over Corporations: A Brief History of  Democracy in Ohio and Challenges to Freedom in the Future

coc

Those who rule based on the dominant culture, regardless of country or political persuasion, have always written the “mainstream” version of history. By definition, this means people, ideas and actions fundamentally challenging the dominant culture are barely mentioned, if so rarely analyzed, or are distorted or omitted altogether. It’s the responsibility of those not part of the dominant culture (always has been, always will be) to (re)claim the people, ideas and actions from the past – to be inspired, to learn the lessons and to assess what may be useful in the present. Ohio’s history is not just a description of its past Presidents, where and when its wartime battles took place, or which Ohioans flew into space. Another part, its hidden part, is the story of the successes, struggles and failures of the many people who sought to establish a state where they could make the basic decisions affecting their own lives free from external control. It’s also the story of the few who imposed control over Ohio’s majority of people and resources using the business corporation as their primary vehicle. These stories are enormously relevant today.                                                                                                – Greg Coleridge

The questions and answers below are excerpted from Citizens over Corporations: A Brief History of Democracy in Ohio and Challenges to Freedom in the Future, available for $3. To order, send a check/money order to Create Real Democracy, 3016 Somerton Rd., Cleveland Heights, OH 44118.

 

1. Where is the following language found?
That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; and, every free, republican government being founded on their sole authority, and organized for the great purpose of protecting their rights and liberties and securing their independence to effect these ends, they have at all times a complete power to alter, reform or abolish their government, whenever they may deem it necessary.
(a) US Declaration of Independence
(b) Communist Manifesto
(c) Ohio Constitution
(d) US Articles of Confederation
(e) US Constitution

2. Early legislative acts in Ohio creating corporations one at a time through petitioning the legislature, or General Assembly, stipulated rigid conditions. These privileges, not rights, included what provisions?
(a) Limited duration of charter or certificate of incorporation
(b) Limitation on amount of land ownership
(c) Limitation of amount of capitalization, or total investment of owners
(d) Limitation of charter for a specific purpose (to amend its charter, a new corporation had to be formed). The state reserved the right to amend the charters or to revoke them
(e) All of the above

3. In 1818, the Ohio General Assembly passed the “crowbar law.” What did this do?
(a) It issued crowbars to every Ohioan.
(b) It legalized the use of crowbars as weapons, under the motto, “Crowbars don’t kill people, people do.”
(c) It allowed certain state employees to enter a nationally chartered bank in Ohio and take money that it had been taxed by the legislature but not yet paid.

4. What action the Ohio General Assembly do to chartered companies that violated the terms of their charters?
(a) They issued fines.
(b) They appointed “Blue Ribbon” committees to look into the violations.
(c) They revoked their corporate charters.
(d) They expanded the terms of their charters to include whatever violation(s) were being committed.

5. The 1837 Ohio Loan Law provided state funds to railroads, canals, and turnpike companies for construction and maintenance, loans to railroads and funds for the purchase of stock in canal and turnpike companies. What was the nickname of this law?
(a) The Abundance for All Ohioans Law
(b) The Plunder Law
(c) The Socialism Law

6. Government abuse by the rich and corporate agents resulted in the public successfully organizing what in 1851?
(a) A statewide Constitutional convention
(b) A violent uprising
(c) Parades in affluent neighborhoods across the state

7. What group of Ohioans voiced the following sentiment?
The corporation has received vitality from the state; it continues during its existence to be the creature of the state; must live subservient to its laws, and has such powers and franchises as those laws have bestowed upon it, and none others. As the state was not bound to create it in the first place, it is not bound to maintain it, after having done so, if it violates the laws or public policy of the state, or misuses its franchises to oppress the citizens thereof.
(a) Radical Democrats
(b) Radical anarchists
(c) Radical farmers and workers
(d) The Ohio Supreme Court

8. In 1853, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled four times in what way regarding the US Supreme Court’s position that states don’t have the power to define corporations through its charter.
(a) The Ohio Supreme Court wholeheartedly upheld the US Supreme Court decision.
(b) The Ohio Supreme Court upheld but with reservations the US Supreme Court decision.
(c) The Ohio Supreme Court opposed and defied the US Supreme Court decision.

9. U.S. Senator John Sherman from Ohio was the main sponsor of what is still today considered to be the best federal anti-trust legislation, the “Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.” The federal law trumped much stronger anti-trust laws passed by many states. What did Sherman say in Congress in support of his law?
(a) This law will make me famous.
(b) [P]eople are feeling the power and grasp of these combinations, and are demanding of every State Legislature and of Congress a remedy for this evil, only grown into huge proportions in recent times… You must heed their appeal, or be ready for the socialist, the communist and the nihilist.
(c) This law will usher in a new period of democracy.

10. Penalties courts imposed for abuse or misuse of the corporate charter were often more severe than a simple plea bargain or fine. They included stripping the corporation of its privileges to perform certain actions. The most severe penalty — not uncommon from the mid-1800’s through the first several decades of this century — was to revoke the corporate charter and dissolve the corporation itself. The legal device used to achieve these penalties was quo warranto proceedings, meaning “by what authority.” In the mid 1800’s, numerous states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by legislatures. Ohio’s General Assembly passed a quo warranto act in 1838. Ohio’s General Assembly determined that when subordinate entities like corporations acted beyond their authority, or ultra vires, they were guilty of rebellion and must be terminated. How often did the courts revoke corporate charters in Ohio?
(a) Dozens of times
(b) A few times
(c) Only once

11. In the early 1890s the State of Ohio sought to revoke the charter of the Standard Oil Company, the largest corporation in the country at the time. Who initiated the action?
(a) Ohio farmers
(b) Ohio workers
(c) Ohio’s leading Democratic public officials
(d) Ohio Republican Attorney General David K. Watson

12. Ohio became a state in 1802. When did Ohio workers first organize themselves into a trade association/union?
(a) 1802
(b) 1812
(c) 1865
(d) 1900

13. What did many Ohio Locofocos consider “a greater danger to ‘free principles’ than slavery?
(a) Indians
(b) Banks
(c) The Ohio Constitution
(d) Who the heck are “Locofocos?”

14. In the 1890’s the Ohio People’s Party, composed of workers and farmers across the state was formed. Name one of their many demands for democratic and social change.

15. What did Jacob Coxey, a wealthy businessman from Massillon, do in 1894?
(a) Built a massive steel plant, Coxey’s Works, in Massillon.
(b) Took advantage of the Plunder Law like no other Ohioan ever had.
(c) Organized a march from Massillon to Washington, DC to address the issue of unemployment.

16. Who said, “I believe in the municipal ownership of all public service monopolies…for if you do not own them they will, in time, own you. They will rule your politics, corrupt your institutions,
and finally destroy your liberties.”
(a) Ohio communists
(b) Ohio socialists
(c) Ohio nihilists
(d) Cleveland Mayor (and former businessman) Tom Johnson

17. What happened in Ohio after the US Supreme Court in Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific declared corporations were “persons” under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution?

18. What is the difference between a person and a corporation, according to former presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who spoke to the Ohio Constitutional convention in 1912?

19. Name one democratic change that the public pressured for in the new 1912 Ohio Constitution?

20. What action did the Ohio General Assembly prohibit by legislation in 1908 and remained illegal for the most part until 1959?
(a) Gambling
(b) Drinking
(c) Voting
(d) Corporate campaign contributions

 

ANSWERS

1. c
2. e
3. c

4. c (This happened dozens of times. One example: in 1842 the Ohio General Assembly repealed the charter of the German Bank of Wooster in Wayne County. It instructed the bank to close its affairs. The legislature stated: It shall be the duty of the court of common pleas… or any judge of the supreme court…to restrain said bank, its officers, agents and servants or assignees, from exercising any corporate rights, privileges, and franchises whatever, or from paying out, selling, transferring, or in any way disposing of, the lands, tenements, goods, chattels, rights, credits, moneys, or effects whatsoever, of said bank… and force the bank commissioners to close the bank and deliver full possession of the banking house, keys, books, papers, lands, tenements, goods, chattels, moneys, property and effects of said bank, of every kind and description whatever…)

5. b
6. a
7. d

8. c (At least four historic state supreme court decisions in 1853 challenged the US Supreme Court Dartmouth v Woodword 1819 decision and its fundamental premise that a corporate charter was a contract by claiming the state rather than the federal government possessed basic self-governance rights. The first of the four decisions was DeBolt v The Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company In its decision upholding the right of the State of Ohio to increase the tax of a life insurance corporation, the court affirmed the self-governing rights of the state rather than the federal government to change corporate charters and establish laws.
…[I]n every political sovereign community, there inheres necessarily the right and the duty of guarding its own existence, and of promoting the interests and welfare of the community at large. The constitution of the United States, although adopted by the sovereign States of this Union, and
proclaimed in its language, to be the supreme law for their government, can, by no rational interpretation be brought to conflict with this attribute in the States… the power in the State is an independent power, and does not come within the class of cases prohibited by the constitution.)

9. b
10. a

11. d (The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the right of Standard Oil in 1892 to form a trust but permitted the company to retain its charter. Standard Oil, however, defied the court ruling on trusts. In 1898, another Ohio Attorney General, Frank Monnett, Republican from Crawford County, took Standard Oil to court on contempt charges. Standard Oil fled Ohio for New Jersey, where they operated their trust until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to break up the trust in 1911.)

12. a (Working people organized through Unions have been a powerful presence through Ohio’s history. They’ve been responsible for humane working conditions, wages and benefits, winning the right to strike and the 8 hour work day. Direct resistance to corporate power at the workplace, on the streets, or through the ballot box were not the only challenges to corporate power by workers and unions in Ohio. Working people also endorsed alternative business formations, such as cooperatives, worker-owned enterprises, and businesses owned outright by cities and towns.)

13. b (When the General Assembly was reasonably representative of the public, strong laws were passed dictating every facet of banking practices with tough penalties for violations. Penalties included guilty officers “imprisoned in the cell or dungeon of the county jail, and fed on bread and water only…”, “imprisoned in the penitentiary, and kept at hard labor…,” and individual liability of bank directors, presidents, and officers.)

14. The Ohio People’s Party (supported by farmers and workers across Ohio) platform called for the “restriction of the ability of politicians to change city charters and the requirement that voters approve all charter changes; initiative and referendum… revocation of the charter of the Standard Oil Company; and the eight hour work day.” The party ran candidates across the state.

15. c. (“Coxey’s Army” consisted of 100 men. Other armies formed across the nation that linked to Coxey’s group just outside DC. Labor unions and Populists supported the march. Coxey received a permit to march into DC but he was not granted a permit to speak at the Capitol. When he tried to speak, he was arrested and convicted of displaying banners on the Capitol grounds. In his case, the banner was a button on his lapel. Coxey responded to his arrest with these words, “Up these steps the lobbyists of trusts and corporations have passed unchallenged on their way to committee rooms, access to which we, the representatives of the toiling wealth producers, have been denied.”)

16. d

17. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional following Santa Clara hundreds of laws in scores of states that had passed due to the hard efforts of citizens and workers to control corporations. Several of these were Ohio laws. Corporations in Ohio were declared “persons” with due process rights and were granted “all the rights and business transactions which are possessed by a sole person conducting a like business.” A 1915 court decision declared that a corporation had the same Bill of Rights protections as persons, stating: The legal rights of the…defendant, Loan Company, although it be a corporation, soulless and speechless, rise as high in the scales of law and justice as those of the most obscure and poverty-stricken subject of the state.

18. “The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.”

19. The initiative and referendum were adopted as methods to bypass the legislature in the creation or revocation of laws. Municipal home rule, permitting communities of 5000 or more in population to govern themselves, was also adopted. Public service corporations opposed home rule, seeing it as a device encouraging municipal ownership of utilities.

20. d (The law stated: “That no corporation doing business in this state shall directly or indirectly pay, use or offer, consent or agree to pay or use, any of its money or property for, or in aid, of any political party, committee or organization, or for, or in aid of, any candidate for political office or for nomination for any such office, or in any manner use any of its money or property for any political purpose whatever, or for the reimbursement or indemnification of any person or persons for moneys or property so used.)

Cleveland citizens decry impact of Citizens United case at first Democracy Day hearing

DemocracyDay

Hearing prompts calls to curb corporate campaign influence

By Robert Higgs, cleveland.com

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/05/cleveland_citizens_decry_impac.html#incart_river_home

Hacked off by the Electoral College

title

Below is the January newsletter posting from the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD). It’s posted here because the POCLAD website, poclad.org, was hacked at the end of 2016 with content of the entire website erased. We were hoping to have the site restored before sending out this article. The website will, hopefully, be back online in the next few weeks. We feel POCLAD’s archives and occasional articles examining core democracy/self-governance issues are more relevant now than ever.

HACKED OFF BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Greg Coleridge

It happened again. For the fifth time in our nation’s history, we have a President of the United States who received fewer popular votes than his opponent.

As if we needed more political developments to question the legitimacy of our political system, we can now add to the growing list a President claiming a mandate to implement his agenda who lost the election by 2.86 million votes.

This issue for many is all about the individual persons who actually won and lost. It shouldn’t be. The larger, more fundamental issue is about democracy.  It’s about the credibility and legitimacy of our political system.

The fundamental question is very simple: should citizens in the United States have the right to have their individual votes count equally when electing their President? Yes or No?

While Congressional Committees are now investigating the threat posed to our elections by the Russians, including possible hacking of private emails, every citizen should be hacked off by the proven threat to democracy on full public display every four years by the built-in system for (s)electing the President: the Electoral College.

Never mind a possible single wall built between Mexico and the U.S. in the next four years, multiple walls were erected in our own original Constitution to keep We the People outside our own government and governance.1  Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay and other of our nation’s “founders,” fearing the potential political power of “the rabble,” had little interest in establishing anything approaching a real democracy.

History

The Electoral College is one of those walls. A relic of the immoral and heinous slavery era of our nation, the Electoral College was included in the Constitution to protect the political power of southern slave states when electing the President. Since slaves had zero rights, including the right to vote, an actual democratic national popular voting system would threaten the institution of slavery.

A nifty alternative was proposed by southern slave masters counting the “votes” of states over those of citizens, with each slave counted as 3/5ths of a real person when determining the number of proportional “electors” representing that state. This inflated the political power of slave states, protecting the barbaric institution.  Democracy, like many slaves who resisted their inhumane treatment, was tarred and featured. Little wonder that four of the nation’s first five Presidents were from slave-dense Virginia.

Adding to the dismay was the requirement that each state, regardless of population, would receive an additional two electors — representing the number of Senators of each state. The democratic distortion was in full display (or decay) before the ink dried on the parchment of the original Constitution.

The sordid link between the Electoral College and slavery transcends its birth. Rutherford B. Hayes was the second loser of the popular vote to become President.  Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden in 1877. Twenty electoral votes were “unresolved.” The (s)election of Hayes as President was determined by a special commission, controlled by the CEO of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and made up of Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. A deal was struck, The Compromise of 1877: Hayes would receive the 20 electoral votes if he agreed to pull federal troops from the South. This put an end to Reconstruction and the launch of Jim Crow racist laws. Those same troops were shifted to put down the first national labor strike in 1877, resulting in the death of over 100 strikers. Other troops were sent to fight the “Indian Wars” in the West, which stole land and created a different form of enslavement – Indian Reservations.2  Thank you Electoral College!

Democratic disaster

A few years ago Donald Trump said: “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”
Views can and do obviously change when the shoe is on the other foot – or in his case Tweets are coming from another smartphone.  It’s not surprising that Electoral College outrage is so partisan. It’s the same with gerrymandering. Those doing the line drawing to benefit their political party and marginalize the other party always think it’s fair, even if the drawing paints a democratically damning picture. The Electoral College is, however, a nonpartisan assault on real democracy.

The major pillar of the Electoral College defense is the argument that it provides balance in ensuring political voice and power to rural and unpopulated communities and states. The point was made, for example, that the entire 2.86 million popular vote advantage of Clinton came from just California and New York and, thus, a popular voting system would in effect be determined by wishes, wills and whims of these two coastal states.3

Numbers can be parsed, of course, in ways to make exactly the opposite point. Texas, with its 38 electoral votes, can be claimed to have determined the national election. Given that Trump received 74 more electoral votes than Clinton, it can be asserted that it was the wishes, wills and whims of the Lone Star State alone that determined the final outcome.

There’s a reason that no other nation on the planet self-identifying as a “democracy” or “democratic republic” has anything like an Electoral College. Why? Because it violates the basic democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” Every vote should count and be weighted identically. Under the Electoral College, voters in small states have greater power per person than in more populous states due to every state, regardless of population, automatically receiving two electoral votes. It’s simple math.

Smaller states also have disproportionate power in the U.S. Senate. Gerrymandered congressional districts result in one political party (Republicans at the moment) having far better representation in the House of Representatives than their number of registered party members would warrant in state after state. If you add in the rights of minorities from majorities (be they individuals or institutions) inherently protected by the U.S. Supreme Court, a solid argument can be made that the constitutional scale is tipped well away from the right or power of popular, majority rule.

The fundamental democratic “unit” in our country is the human person (or in the case of elections, voters), not “the state” or “substate” like such as individual states, counties, cities, wards, or precincts. It should be irrelevant, therefore, how many states, counties, cities, wards or precincts presidential candidates won, but only how many eligible human votes they received. That’s how winning candidates are determined for Senate, House of Representatives, state elected office, county elected office, mayor, councilperson, even ward precinct committee person. Governors in all 50 states are elected by popular vote. Should not the same be true for the governor of all states – the President?

It’s only the Electoral College that permits losers to be winners.

If this were as fair as its promoters suggest in choosing a President, it would be a relative breeze to develop an equivalent Electoral College-friendly system at the state level to elect, say, U.S. Senators. Compared to the months it takes for state officials every decade to create gerrymandered congressional and state senate and representative districts, designing such a system would be a relative cakewalk. Winning the greatest number of counties in their a state with rural counties weighted more heavily would elect U.S. Senators regardless of the state’s overall popular vote. Why hasn’t it happened? Because no politician or “Blue Ribbon Commission” could sell it to the public.

Winning when losing broadens and deepens the ever-growing legitimacy crisis of the Presidency in particular and U.S. political system in general.

The hallmark of one person, one vote as the mechanism to determine outcomes transcends politics to include virtually every civil society organization. Even “Dancing with the Stars” honors one person, one vote in their annual faux electronic elections. You can’t get any more culturally legit!

Taking action

There are very few moments when fundamental flaws in governing institutions are so blatantly revealed. This is one of them.

The challenge will be to address fundamental democratic constitutional flaws amidst responding to scores of anticipated horrific public policy proposals from the Trump Administration.4  It’s what the Move to Amend (www.movetoamend.org) campaign to abolish corporate constitutional rights and money defined as constitutionally-protected free speech faces in the coming years.

It’s the same old story for people of conscience: deciding where to strategically place their strategic time, energy and resources. Should we focus on electing or unelecting public officials? Should we advocate for better laws and regulations? Should we organize for long-term structural and institutional change?

The answer is, of course, some of each. They’re all needed. They all, if understood as a package, reinforce one another.

Despite the in-our-faces contradiction between the myth of one person, one vote that we’re raised to believe our nation upholds compared with the reality the Electoral College presents, little activist energy exists for a constitutional amendment campaign to abolish this antidemocratic arrangement, despite an Amendment being introduced in late 2016 by former Senator Barbara Boxer.

Abolishing the Electoral College is more likely to occur as part of a larger package of constitutional “Democracy Amendments” in the future. This will require that citizens continue organizing a larger “democracy movement” which undergirds many current social, economic, political and environmental efforts.  As a reaction to the evaporating myth of democracy in our country, there is growing dedication to a democracy movement capable of successfully pushing a package of “Democracy Amendments.”  It could be a reality much sooner than we think.

In the meantime, there is an alternative strategy that would neutralize the Electoral College and its democratic distortions. Ten states and the District of Columbia have already passed legislation awarding their respective Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote. These states and DC account for 165 electors.  If additional states with a cumulative total of 105 electors take the same action, the Electoral College would, in effect, be trumped with one person, one vote becoming the means for deciding the next President.

Being hacked off about the Electoral College is wholly legitimate.  Our task is to convert that anger into positive vision, engagement and common action on behalf of an electoral system with democratic integrity.

Notes

1 A list of undemocratic Constitutional provisions has been itemized in an earlier POCLAD article, A U.S. Constitution with DEMOCRACY IN MIND, http://poclad.org/BWA/2007/BWA_2007_MAR.html#3
2 Human Rights for Human Beings, Not Corporations,
http://poclad.org/BWA/2001/BWA_2001_MAR.html
3 The word “coast” is constantly used in this and other contexts not as a geographic descriptor but as a form of derision. “The coast” infers being on the edge or fringe, compared to being mainstream, or the center. The Midwest is authentic or real because it lies in the “heartland.” Interesting how those who use the word “coast” with such derision never use it when describing, say, Texas, with considerable coastline on the southern edge or fringe of the nation.
4 There would have been many horrific policies, though in some cases of a different set, deserving of immediate reaction and resistance if Clinton had been elected.

Cleveland City Council passes ordinance on corporate power and money in elections

unknown

NEWS RELEASE

Contacts: Lois Romanoff, 216-231-2170, loisromanoff@gmail.com
Chris Stocking, 440-376-8400, Christopher.Stocking@gmail.com
Diane Karpinski, 216-921-2474, ms.diane.karpinski@gmail.com
Greg Coleridge, 216-255-2184, gcoleridge@afsc.org

For immediate release, December 8, 2016

Cleveland City Council passes ordinance calling for U.S. Constitutional Amendment on corporate power and money in elections; creates biennial Democracy Day

[Cleveland, OH]  Cleveland City Council Monday night passed an ordinance calling on Congress to enact a Constitutional Amendment ending constitutional rights for corporate entities and to money being defined as free speech. The ordinance also establishes an every-other-year “Democracy Day” public hearing that will address the impact on the City of political contributions by corporations, unions, Political Action Committees, and Super-PACS; the first to be held in May, 2017

The Cleveland Move to Amend (MTA) campaign, part of the national Move to Amend movement that is proposing the Constitutional Amendment, had submitted last summer more than 5000 valid signatures by volunteers required by the City Charter to place the initiative on the ballot.

“We thank Cleveland City Council for taking a position on this important national issue,” said Lois Romanoff, co-chair of Cleveland Move to Amend. “We feel local public officials need to oppose the growing corrupting influence power corporate entities in our society and big money in our elections. It’s clear from the recent election that voters believe government has been captured by interests who don’t represent people without money or power.”

“We urged City Council to place the citizen initiative on the ballot for voter consideration rather than simply enact the initiative, said Chris Stocking, co-chair of Cleveland Move to Amend. “We feel these issues are important enough to have not only Cleveland public officials take a position, but Cleveland citizens. A ballot measure would have given us the opportunity to broadly discuss with the community the many problems connected with corporate power and large campaign contributions from the super wealthy.”

“While we had hoped Cleveland City Council would have permitted our initiative to go to the ballot, we look forward to working with them to hold the first biennial Democracy Day public hearing next May,” said Diane Karpinski, member of Cleveland MTA. The hearing will be an ongoing arena to shed light on the problems of and alternatives to corporate constitutional rights and the rights of unlimited money being spent in elections.”

“Hundreds of communities across the nation have already enacted municipal resolutions and/or ballot measures in support of this Constitutional Amendment,” said Greg Coleridge, Move to Amend Ohio coordinator and Director of the NE Ohio American Friends Service Committee. “Twenty two communities in Ohio have, to date, taken a stand — 12 via municipal resolution and 10 by the ballot, including this past November with 82% of Shaker Heights voters and 77% of South Euclid voters.”

Citizens in Brecksville, Chagrin Falls, Cleveland Heights, Defiance, Kent, Mentor, Newburgh Heights, and Toledo previously passed a similar ballot initiative while the communities of Athens, Barberton, Bedford Heights, Canton, Dayton, Fremont, Lakewood, Lorain, Oakwood Village, Oberlin, Oxford, and South Euclid passed city council resolutions supporting the Move to Amend-backed Constitutional Amendment.

Move to Amend support the We the People Amendment, HJR 48. It’s co-sponsored by 22 U.S. Representatives.

# 30 #