I am a staunch supporter of House Bill 244, which was introduced in the Alaska House by Rep. Scott Kawasaki.
The bill reads: “An act providing that for-profit corporations and limited liability companies organized in this state are not persons for the purposes of influencing the outcomes of public office elections, initiatives, referendums, or recalls. We do not believe that corporations are people nor should they have the ability to influence our elections.”
The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court is the worst decision by the high court in recent history.
We are humans who can feel, eat, drink and walk into a voting booth and vote, but a corporation cannot. Money does not equal the voice of a human being. The Supreme Court has given large, multinational corporations the legal right to spend unlimited amounts of money, anonymously, to buy American elections. Corporations have all the rights of citizens without the responsibility and obligation of a human citizen. Legislators are no longer elected to office by citizens; they are bought and paid for by anonymous corporate donations to campaigns. The right of the American citizen to vote for and elect officials has been stolen.
The corporation was created to protect the public interest, but today, it has one purpose; to make money. Corporations want legislators who will pass or not pass certain pieces of legislation to make more money. Corporations were stopped from doing harm to our environment and to the health of our citizens by regulations and laws. Even so, powerful corporations wield money, which affords power, in the halls of Congress and state legislatures to influence pending legislation or change existing laws. Then, the Supreme Court goes further by granting corporations the right of speech (money), which will corrode and destroy the election process in this country. Elections are not about which candidate is best, but which candidate raises the most money to win. This is an American citizen issue. Millions of dollars are pouring into campaigns via multinational corporations, and that means other countries are impacting our elections!
As a citizen of Alaska and the U.S., I stand behind HB 244! Corporations are not persons; money is not speech, and corporations should not be able to give unlimited, anonymous donations to political campaigns. I urge everyone to contact all members of the State House Affairs Committee by finding contact information for them at www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_com_info
Michele Vasquez
Soldotna
.asp?comm=HSTA&session=27) and tell them you support HB 244.
Michele Vasquez
Soldotna
Comments (18)
Add commentThat's a pretty big can of
That's a pretty big can of worms. If corporations aren't people, what other groups of people aren't people? Would a union be a "people"? How about a professional association? Neighborhood/condo association? They all have the ability to influence elections and such.
You don't understand
Never before in the history of this country since the writing of the Constitution has ANY entity been given the Constitutional rights of a human citizen. Sure, there are lots and lots of laws, etc., out there for corporations, organizations, unions where the law or reg is written referring to such entity as a "person." Those are mainly state or federal laws. We are talking CONSTITUTION here!! Corporations were given the Constitutional rights of citizens...WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!
You're hurting the
You're hurting the corporations' feelings, guys.
Um, corporations don't have
Um, corporations don't have feelings; that privilege is for living, breathing creatures like humans. :)
Below is an excerpt from an
Below is an excerpt from an article by Empire reporter Russell Stigall about the history of corporate personhood:
The idea of corporate personhood is believed to have taken hold when an amendment to the constitution written to help freed slaves was extended to corporations. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, according to the U.S. Library of Congress, was ratified on July 9, 1868, and “granted citizenship to ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States,’ which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person ‘life, liberty or property, without due process of law’ or to ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”
The Supreme Court decision Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pac. R.R. extended these protections to corporations in 1886.
“These decisions, whether right or wrong, sound or unsound, may have changed the course of our industrial history. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives. And so armed, they proceeded to the development and exploitation of a continent,” William O. Douglas wrote in the Columbia Law Review. Subsequent legal decisions and stare decisis have strengthened the rights of corporations as persons. Culminating in the Citizens United case.
Stare decisis is legal precedent. Judges look to past rulings for guidance.
“Stare decisis serves to take the capricious element out of law and to give stability to a society. It is a strong tie which the future has to the past,” Douglas wrote.
John: The Supreme Court never
John:
The Supreme Court never made a decision on corporate personhood in that case. It was a tax issue only. A court reporter by the name of J.C. Bancroft Davis wrote his own "headnote" on this decision, not what the Court actually ruled on. Look for the actual ruling, minus the supposed comment by Chief Justice Waite, and you will see there is NOTHING about corporate personhood in the actual ruling.
John: This is from
John:
This is from Wikipedia:
In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
Notice the "NOT PART OF THE OPINION"
Also, from the Cornell Sun:
Also, from the Cornell Sun: http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2010/01/26/court-ignores-p...
"It started with the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In the interest of space, I won’t regurgitate every detail of the trial; however, I would strongly encourage you to look up the decision. You may notice one glaring problem: the written decision makes no mention of corporate personhood whatsoever." And it continues in detail.
Empire reporter Russell Stigall is incorrect.
Fetuses and Corporations
Evidently there's a campaign going on out there in some states to push for a constitutional amendment stating that fetuses are 'persons' with some of the rights of 'persons'.
How about a swap. We give you fetus personhood, you abort corporation personhood.
Latitude: Actually there are
Latitude: Actually there are some states that want life defined as beginning at conception...We already have an Amendment to the Constitution on Roe vs. Wade, but the states trying to pass ridiculous laws like life begins at conception, outlawing birth control, forcing women to undergo sonograms is just plain outlandish. War on women. No swap.
so, if life doesn't begin at
so, if life doesn't begin at conception, Luvak, when does it start? 3rd trimester? Birth? That child that is delivered was living, growing and developing long before it saw the delivery room.
Life begins before
Life begins before conception. Sperm and ova are both alive. Personhood has nothing to do with life. End story. Now stay on topic.
If I can add an afterword to the story about life
every theology has their idea about when it (presumably understood as newly minted human being, though PP's point is well taken) begins. Some religious claim it's the first breath, others, well, there are many beliefs now, aren't there?
No, theology doesn't have answers to what is a scientific question.
And here's the kicker, science can't tell us anything about what people have already made up their minds about.
The evidence, so far, points to conception being a transition, a process, not a moment, and certainly not a point in time anyone can claim to know on 2/2/12.
I do not mean to suggest this reality eases the crafting of public policies regarding abortion. But it does take away what really is becoming a stale argument from people who are, in my experience, more properly called pro-birth than pro-life.
Mike
I don't care to discuss the
I don't care to discuss the pros or cons of abortion, birth control, life at conception, etc., etc., etc., under a letter regarding corporations are NOT people! Please, take that fight elsewhere.
UNIONS are worse than the corporations
Please be sure you include unions in this BILL or do NOT pass the bill.
and, while we are on the subject...
Why are non-profit organizations not included (or are they?).
Does this mean that Planned Parenthood, which is a so-called non-profit corporation, can contribute however much they want to anyone's campaign? How about Earthjustice? Does this mean that Earthjustice, as a so-called non-profit, can contribute however much they want to anyone's campaign? HOLD YOUR HORSES lawmakers! Are you really ready to consider this legislation as it is currently written?!!!
@ hello juneau1: Unions are worse than corporations?
People banding together in unions are what stemmed the tide of corporate abuse of the working class. Organized Labor activity brought YOU things like a 40-hour workweek, paid overtime, weekends off, healthcare and other benefits, such as sick leave, and a defined benefit pension, whereby an employee could retire with dignity, and not burden society. People banding together in unions are what stopped the likes of JP Morgan and the Vanderbilts and their contemporaries from turning the wokring class into slaves (much the same way as the national agenda of the wholly-corporate-owned GOP), and if they didn't like their job, go ahead and leave, cuz they can always find another slave to take their place. Collective bargaining for wages and benefits is a basic human right, and no actions by corporate lapdogs will ever change that. Your statement is monumentally ridiculous.
Then along came Hoffa and his ilk....
Who convinced the union membership that they needed to pay dearly for these "Benifits" and of course the members still pay to this day......