Citizens United irritated the hell out of the left. Essentially, the Supreme Court held that incorporated entities had rights like you and I. Understand, they really weren't saying that Corporations are real people, but they did say that they have first amendment rights . Corporations cannot vote like people, but they can donate to campaigns and take sides on issues. They are taxed like people. They must pay property taxes and income taxes like people. What politicians do, or don't do, can greatly affect them, both favorably and adversely.
Before we get into the nuts and bolts of this post, let's define a term.
Simply put (according to dictionary.com), a corporation is a group of people authorized by law to act as a legal personality with its own powers, duties, and liabilities. The etymology of the term dates back to the 1500s and comes from the Latin "corporare" which means "to embody". Essentially, it allows individuals to band together as a single, legal entity for some purpose. Different states have different rules for incorporation, but they all essentially do the same thing.
What does all that mean toward "personhood"?
The left went into a hissy fit! Obama, the incompetent fraud that he is, rebuked the Supreme Court as they sat in front of him at his State of the Union speech for their ruling! He even lied and told us that now, even foreign corporations could now buy influence.
While overturning getting the Supreme Court to overturn a previous decision is not impossible, it is not the easiest thing to do and could take years and years if not decades if at all. The next best way around it is to Amend the Constitution. Again, not impossible, but it is difficult. However, if they name it something that makes it sound palatable and couch it in terms that seem to indicate that they are indeed preserving rights instead of taking them away; they just might have a chance.
Enter the "People’s Rights Amendment". That sounds good, but what does it contain?
Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulations as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
It sounds as if the only thing they are changing is idea that corporations are people. OK. So why is that so bad? Since I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be a legal scholar of any sort, I will rely on the opinions of people with way more knowledge of the subject than myself.
Eugene Volokh is a blogger and a UCLA Law Professor. Professor Volokh suggests that corporate media, to include newspapers, news networks, etc. would be limited.
So just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines — which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publications as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate). Nor does this proposal leave room for the possibility, in my view dubious, that the Free Press Clause would protect newspapers organized by corporations but not other corporations that want to use mass communications technology. Section 3 makes clear that the preservation of the “freedom of the press” applies only to “the people,” and section 2 expressly provides that corporations aren’t protected as “the people.”
In laymen's terms, Congress could shutdown Fox News or MSNBC if they didn't like their content since they generally own all of it, including their commentaters.
Newspapers, television networks, magazines, and online journalism operations typically are incorporated. So are political parties and campaign committees, to say nothing of nonprofits, business associations, and the like. Under the People’s Rights Amendment, Thomas Friedman would still enjoy putative First Amendment protection, but it would not do him much good inasmuch as the New York Times Company, being a corporation, would no longer be protected by the First Amendment. In short, any political speech more complex than standing on a soapbox at an intersection would be subject to the whims of Nancy Pelosi.
The Left, of course poo-poos all of that, but not everyone got that memo.
Representative Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat, nonchalantly concluded that the amendment would of course strip even political campaigns of the First Amendment rights: “All of the speech which, whether it’s corporations of campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress.”
Anything with "people's" in its title should cause you to raise your eyebrows and cause you to read the fine print. It is usually Orwellian doublespeak.
You may remember that the Soviet Union adamantly insisted that their constitution guaranteed the right of free speech - as long as it was The Party doing the speaking. Such will be the case here. Whatever party that is in powere will be able to control what the corporate press is allowed to say.
This is just another tactic by the left to rob you of your rights. Freedom of speech is under attack.
VW
