Two of Alaska’s lawmakers are not taking kindly to corporate influence on public elections.
U.S. Sen. Mark Begich co-signed a constitutional amendment that rescinds years of legal precedent finding corporations have many of the same rights as a legal person. These rights include the right to speak or not speak, enter into contracts and advertise products, according to the Columbia Law Review. Corporations traditionally have been banned from voting, running for office or owning guns.
With the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court decision in the fall of 2009, corporations gained the right to donate money to politicians and political parties.
Begich co-signed the Saving of American Democracy Amendment with Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“I co-sponsored both the Sanders constitutional amendment and an earlier version introduced by 18 senators because I believe in a level playing field when it comes to elections and campaign donations,” Begich said. “The Citizens United case gave too much power to for-profit corporations and sets up the possibility of huge corporate contributions. One way to equalize this balance of power is to make it clear for-profit corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as people. That’s what the Sanders resolution proposes.”
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts found that Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had the right to air a movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary season in 2008. The ruling was 5 to 4 in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.
According to a Begich fact sheet, the “Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision gave corporations the ability to drown out the will of the people by using the profits in their general treasury funds to influence elections. Now, corporations can use millions of dollars to defeat candidates that may threaten their bottom line. Everyday Americans simply cannot compete with the virtually limitless resources of corporations.”
Efforts to curb corporate influence have taken root in Alaska as well.
Corporations are not “persons” Kawasaki says in his House Bill 224 and should be barred from participation in elections. His bill, released Jan. 6, provides that “for-profit corporations and limited liability companies organized in this state are not persons for purposes of influencing the outcomes of public office elections, initiatives, referendums, or recalls.”
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.
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Corporations are NOT people!
And until we can get a reasonable Supreme Court to decide otherwise, elections will be funded and controlled by corporate America.
It was the Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees to the Supreme Court who decided in favor of granting corporations personhood to the detriment of the average American. Typical.
As Begich and Kawasaki stated, this creates a virtual limitless amount of money corporations can donate to politicians. This continues the cycle of greed and corruption, buying politicians and unfairly influencing elections. The 1% win, again. And Fox news devotees wonder why there is such unrest with the 99%.
Thank you Mark and Scott, for being a voice of reason in a seemingly unreasonable political world.
"Tea parties are for little girls with imaginary friends."
More Democrats wanting
to protect themselves from critical speech by restricting freedom of speech.
"Corporation" come to us from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people."
This collection of people, be they management, workers, or shareholders, have a collected right to speak about what is happening in government.
Also, it is very rich (word intended) that unions and their billions of forced dues are not included in these proposed bans.
(Foreign) Citizens United
Corporate campaign contributions are secret. No disclosure required. What a wonderful opportunity for foreign corporations to buy our government. You can be sure money is flooding in from Chinese, Japanese, European, Russian...corporations to the candidates of their choice.
Where's Lisa Murkowski on this? Does she think corporations are 'people'?
And what about Cathy Munoz and Beth Kerttula? Are they going to support Kawasaki's bill?
Regarding unions...sure, they should be restricted just like the corporations.
Regardless of
which side one falls on this issue, campaign finance is a joke and always has been. History shows time and again that whenever Congress takes up the issue the new laws somehow end up benefit the incumbent.
Citizens, corporations, and unions should demand the ability to donate as much money as they want to whomever and for whatever political purpose they desire.
The onus should not be on those who donate, but upon those who receive. Candidates should have to instantly disclose (in this electronic age) who/what has donated and in what amount.
If a politician wants to be fully funded by a corporation or a union, then so be it. But the voters would then have access to that information.
The current system, both prior to and following Citizens United, encourages crony capitalism; and no one but pols benefit from that.
Personal responsibility
Corporations can't have all of the benefits of personhood and none of the responsibilities.
- corporations don't have to serve jury duty
- they can't be drafted in a war
- they don't go to jail if they break a law
How about this: Corporate CEOs and other officers, and the boards of directors, ARE people. So let them take on those responsibilities.
If we have a war, with our newly downsized military, we'll need to implement a draft. The first people to be drafted should be the children of those corporate officers and board members. Likewise, if a corporation, through negligence, causes the death or injury of an employee or worker, the CEO should be held personally accountable.
Want the benefits of being a 'super person' who's effectively immortal? Then you get super responsibilities as well. Earn that huge salary and stock options that you're getting.
drowned out
gg, with unlimited donations, citizens are utterly drowned out by the corporate and union spending. Regardless of who's contributing.
I'd be more comfortable with government funded campaigns...and that's it. No other contributions, outside money, nada. Level playing field when it comes to resources. Let their ideas and positions speak for themselves.
But the other ingredient in all of this is the voter. They need to be informed. And that means turning off the idiot box once in awhile.
@ Latitude58
Are you sure about government funded campaigns? It seems likely if that course were taken it could easily result in the same problem that the shareholders of the native corps have, a situation where the board of directors is chosen by the board of directors and the odds of a outsider getting in are effectively nil.
Personal Responsibilty
lat--you title one of your posts Personal Responsibility, but when are you going to demand that from our elected officials? Corporations have responsibility to consumers and share holders over the donations they make, yet should we not demand that same responsibility from the politicians?
I say again, if a pol chooses to be 100% financed by an individual, a company, or a union then the voters pretty well know that he is completely bought and paid for.
If a different pol chooses to be 100% financed by thousands of small donors then voters know who he represents.
I expect more from the pols, it is a shame you don't. TV isn't the problem, it is people with low expectations who are too ready to excuse a pol simply because he or she is "my guy."
Both Unions and Corporations
ANY non-person should be considered a non-person, down the line.
This isn't a partisan issue; it's not a 99% issue: it's an AMERICAN issue.
Most Americans, whether the wealthy, the unionized, the right, the left, realize that we are no longer in control of our government.
Thank you, Mark Begich -- it is heartening to see you doing something strong to help Alaskans/Americans.
Thank you Begich, Kawasaki
Democracy for the 99%. Voters need to control elections not who ever has the most money.
We have a growing deficit and Corporations are paying more for their lobbyists to lobby our Reps. than they do in taxes.
vote out, recall any rep or governor that stands in the way of this.
Empire, Lat and crackers
Empire - if you are going to quote Kawasaki in an article, it should first be stated who he is.
Latitude - I agree with you on this one - and while we're at it, how about limiting the allowable campaign window to 90 days? Require all candidates to attend debates.
ggcrackers - I think the biggest problem with how the finances are now is that so many donations, including those by huge corporations, are NOT public, if they are done through a superpac. Sure, have everyone who is going to become a candidate meet a rigorous entry requirement in order to access funding - but if there are 6 candidates who meet those entry requirements (signatures, having held lower elected office, or whatever), and they all recieve the exact same amount of funding - where is the cronyism?
No taxation without representation
Simple solution then, dont tax the corporations. If the people that make-up the corporation are denied the right to support candidates and essentially take their vote and influence away then you cannot tax them. If their money is not good enough to support a candidate or a party then it is not good enough to collect as taxes. It is tyrannical to impose value over contributions from one set of people over another's. It is rediculous to let organized unions spend millions in elections and then say that a corporation has no voice or that an individual outside of a corporation has more influence in an election than an individual that is invested in an corporation. Heck this can really get absurd as most of us who have a 401k or some kind of market investment are likely part owners of corporations - do our votes not count, should we not be allowed to contribute to campaigns? This is a modern day suffrage issue. I dont think the government has any right to determine how they limit our electoral freedom regardless of the amount of influence. I do think parties and candidates who are of integrity should and would disclose the source of every penny contributed so that if someone were perceived as trying to "buy" an election then voters/constituents could hold that particular cadidate accountable. Just like those candidates bought by the unions, leftists, tea party and environmental PACS - this should be disclosed publicly.
There are about 9 candidates
There are about 9 candidates who've been bought by unions, "leftists," and environmental PACs. Two of them were elected.
I made up those numbers, but they're not far off.
CaptNoah, your argument is based on wishful thinking. It's wishful thinking to say that parties with "integrity" will disclose where all their dollars come from. Funny, because neither party does that.
It's wishful thinking to assume that organizations and individuals with lots of money can be kept from exerting more power in our political system than us regular folk without regulations, and that this influence doesn't defeat the purpose of our electoral system.
It's wishful thinking to assume that if the information is out there, voters will reject a bought-off politician, considering that information has been available for years, and those politicians still get elected. Case in point: you emphasize "leftist," environmental, and union influence in elections, even though corporate influence exceeds all three of those combined by at least an order of magnitude.
CaptNoah...you forget
A few key things. Like that Union boards are elected by the members - corporate CEOs are not. Or that the people who make up the corporation have ZERO say in where the CEO spends funds - unlike unions. Or that taxes and campaign contributions are not in any way the same.
Isn't it more tyrannical to allow only those who have the most resources to make the rules for all?
strange argument, noah
You suggest that by removing the ability for corporations to make anonymous, unlimited campaign contributions, your right to vote will somehow be disrupted. Not the case. You'll still be able to go down to your ballot box and cast your vote like anybody else. Sure, the corporation in whom you've invested (who has likely outsourced American jobs to Pakistan or Colombia, effectively unemploying folks at home, while simultaneously treating the environment like its a waste pit rather than actual human habitat in the pursuit of quarterly profits) wouldn't be able to purchase legislation and the law makers who advocate for it. But you as an individual/you as a shareholder, would still be granted the right to vote for whatever short-sighted Congressman you'd want.
And although I absolutely think that all campaign contributions should be transparent and public, I agree with PP and lat58 in that its wishful thinking to assume that the public at large would vote consciously if only campaign contributions were transparent and public. Most of that information is already accessible, if we'd just open our eyes and turn off the tv.
"But the major change in the nature of the corporation that is needed now, and that will be essential in the future, is to change the legal mandate that requires the corporation strictly to pursue its own self-interest and to give primacy to maximizing shareholder wealth." -Gus Speth
I don't think we should be commenting on unions at this point...
This bill is about Corporations, not Unions. They are different, and can easily be discussed pro or con in a future bill. I think we do need campaign reform now and this corporate bill is a good start. I believe we need to take the money out of politics and put back in the leadership.
We do not need to spend millions or billions to elect a leader with current technology. Cut out all the media ads and allow each candidate a web-site to simply promote their point of view without speculating on other candidates. That would bring the focus back on each candidates talking points for election, and get rid of the personal conflict. Cut out all the debates; they are just so much made for headline drama. Let every voter check out the websites and discuss their votes with people in their private or local social groups, and allow people to make their minds up in private. Cut the polls, the only real poll is the election. Cut the flak. It could be nice and quiet, and thoughtful, and just think of all the billions of dollars we could save.
My name is Spoorprint, and I approved this message...
Lets go back to how the founding fathers viewed corporations!
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
Election Contributions
There is no difference between Corporations and Unions. Both are selfserving. The biggest offenders of the system are the political candidates that accept the contributions from these kind of money piles. So it seems to me that Begich is the kettle calling the pot...black.
Yeah, unions are totally
Yeah, unions are totally self-serving. They don't help or represent workers at all. No sirree.
apples and oranges
Comparing unions to corporations is making a pretty big leap. One of many differences is that corporations have earned for themselves a reputation of doing everything they can to turn exponentially larger profits every quarter, regardless of whether or not they actually provide a meaningful service, and regardless of how much they exploit humans and the environment for the sake of said quarterly profits.
Unions have earned for themselves a reputation for advocating for a "working wage," the weekend, child labor laws, etc. In effect, unions have fought to ensure that corporations no longer exploit laborers the way they did back in the day of Sinclair's Jungle, or in textile plants in present day Cambodia. Or even more tangibly, unions help attract and retain quality employees in institutions that are essential to the continued improvement of cultural and economic growth: public schools.
Unions have their issues that should be addressed, to be sure. But comparing a teacher's union, or United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters to Nike, JP Morgan, or BP demonstrates either a genuine lack of information on how corporations manage to continually raise profits every quarter and the legal mandate that requires them to do so, or simply a lack of compassion.
use of corporate or public funds for election purposes
Are Mr. Begich and Mr. Kawasahi just as oposed to other political offices, such as the President of the U.S spending money from the treasury flying around the country campaigning on the peoples money....???...using it to 'drown out the voices of other candiates' ???...and as we will be seeing in 2012, anyone else he precieves as getting in his way...!!!...the law not withstanding...!!!
Sometimes, it is good not to think too much...
Uh - Like I said, I think it is a bit confusing to get into the Union thing, as the article is about Corporation reform, and I think that Unions are something else, but that is just my opinion...
Individual or not
Either any and all non individuals, or no non individual. For profit or not for profit groups are all using big money to advance whomever they think will be best for their cause.
Mark, show us the money. Just how much money have you collected from non individuals? Yea they are ok but any entity that disagrees with you can not support your opponent.