Monday, December 12, 2011

Saving American Democracy Amendment

The Right's uncompromising and rigidly inflexible governance exclusively in the interests of the rich has revealed one truth clearly standing. Minority rule by the economic elites is the antithesis of democracy, and is the road to totalitarianism and economic decline for the majority.

Americans are reawakening to the essential ideas of democracy. Money is not free speech, and a corporation is not a person endowed with inalienable rights by the Creator.

At least one senator has taken a stand for democracy in America. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has introduced his "Saving American Democracy Amendment". How far it gets depends on two factors. One is how much the members of the US Senate, House of Representatives and the president support democracy. The other factor is how much they are able to act independently of the stranglehold Big Money already has on our government, politicians and elections.

Nobody is holding their breath on this one, but it is still a vital step in the unending struggle of "Operation American Freedom".

Some frequently asked questions are answered after the text of the Amendment.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.

Resolved, That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures o three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’


Saving American Democracy Amendment:
Introduced by Congressman Ted Deutch (FL-19) and Senator Bernard Sanders (VT)

Frequently Asked Questions:

Why shouldn't corporations have the ability to influence our elections?

Our Constitution was written by the people, for the people. Corporations are entities formed in accordance with state, local, and federal laws that were all written by the people. These for-profit enterprises are established for business purposes and their rights and obligations only extend to their business purposes.

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.

There are already Constitutional amendments out there. Why did you introduce this one?

We applaud the efforts of some of our colleagues in Congress who have introduced measures that aim to overturn Citizens United. However, passing a Constitutional amendment is no easy feat, which is why we believe we need a comprehensive amendment that truly ends corporate control of our elections.

Simply granting Congress the authority to regulate corporate spending in elections does not mean that Congress ever will act. Declaring that corporations are not people will do nothing to stop business associations, formed to promote the business interests of their member corporations, from pouring money into misleading attack ads against candidates that threaten their profits.

Citizens United undermined the very concept of campaign finance law. It declared caps on corporate spending in elections to be unconstitutional and as a result, the caps we already have in place, even for individual contributions to candidates, are also under threat. We also have corporations anonymously using nonprofit groups as fronts for their agendas. The Saving American Democracy Amendment restores to Congress the authority to write campaign finance laws that regulate and disclose all contributions and expenditures by all individuals and all types of organizations in our elections.

What is wrong with the Citizens United decision?

The Supreme Court overturned a century of precedent by ruling in Citizens United that corporations have a constitutional right to spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.

Before Citizens United, corporations had to abide by the ruling in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that limited their participation in elections to political action committees. PACS are funded by voluntary contributions from the employees of a corporation, as opposed to the general treasury fund. The Supreme Court also determined that limitations on corporate spending in elections were permissible in McConnell v. FEC, a decision that upheld portions of the McCain-Feingold reforms that aimed to reign in corporate electioneering.

Because of Citizens United, corporations are now allowed to tap into their profits to spend money advocating for or against candidates of their choosing. Even worse, they can do it anonymously.

By undermining the very concept of campaign finance laws, like the ones limiting individual contributions to candidates, the Citizens United decision even threatens a 1907 law passed by Congress prohibiting corporations from directly contributing to candidates. If we don’t take action, before we know it, the Supreme Court could rule that corporations can directly contribute to candidates for public office.

Is a Constitutional amendment really the best way to address unlimited corporate spending in elections?

Even if Congress had the political will to stand up to special interests and pass limitations on corporate spending in elections, such an effort would be unconstitutional as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. The majority opinion ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as the American people and can spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds in elections. It is too late for Congress to place limits on corporate campaigning. The Framers of our Constitution gave us the power to amend the Constitution and it is imperative that we use it now.

Is your amendment just a giveaway to unions?

No. Labor unions are legally recognized as representatives of workers, who are natural persons with constitutional rights that deserve protections. While the Saving American Democracy Amendment does not prevent unions from using the dues and donations of their workers, it will subject their political activities to laws limiting spending and expenditures, just as it does other private entities and all individuals.

How will people and various types of entities be impacted by the Saving American Democracy Amendment?

Natural Persons: The Saving American Democracy Amendment makes clear that the rights enshrined in our Constitution are those of natural persons. However, the Saving American Democracy Amendment reaffirms the ability of Congress and the States to enact campaign finance laws that limit the amount of money individuals can spend to influence elections and requires political action committees to disclose their donations and operate with transparency.

Corporations: Corporations are not people with constitutional rights. They are for-profit entities established for business purposes. The Saving American Democracy amendment bans for-profit entities and limited liability companies from spending money in elections, whether it be through direct expenditures or to third party groups that aim to influence elections.

501(c)(6)'s: 501(c)6’s are associations formed to promote the business interests of their membership corporations, which are not people. Therefore, these entities are also banned from spending money in elections, and they must make public any contributions to third party groups.

Unions: Labor unions are legally recognized as representatives of workers, who are natural persons with constitutional rights that deserve protection. While the Saving American Democracy Amendment does not prevent unions from using dues and donations from the workers they represent on electoral advocacy, this amendment will subject them to laws limiting spending and expenditures, just as it does other private entities and individuals.

501(c)3 and 501(c)4 Groups: Nonprofit entities, like 501(c)(3) charities, churches, and hospitals, are not impacted by the Saving American Democracy Amendment. 501(c)(4) organizations, which are nonprofits established to promote social welfare, are permitted to participate in elections so long as it is not the organization’s primary purpose. While the American Red Cross, the Sierra Club, and most nonprofit organizations are entirely legitimate, many are props set up by corporations and their CEOs for the purpose of influencing elections. That is why the amendment enables Congress to regulate, limit, and require disclosure of these organizations' electoral expenditures. The Saving American Democracy Amendment gives us the means to effectively police corporations and a few billionaires from using nonprofits as fronts for their political agendas.

How does your amendment address the problem of corporations and very wealthy Americans from anonymously funding front groups to defeat candidates?

Our amendment bans corporations from using their profits in any election or ballot initiative before the people. By requiring that Congress include disclosure as part of our campaign finance laws, corporations that attempt to funnel money into front groups to influence elections will therefore face prosecution for violating the 28th amendment of the Constitution. The amendment also reestablishes the authority undermined by Citizens United for the States and for Congress to set limits and require disclosure of all individual contributions.


History will not judge us kindly if we as a nation fail to defend and promote democracy.

Sunday, December 4, 2011


The wealthy, economic elites, aristocrats, or simply the rich, are what they have been known as for many years. Now through the indoctrination machinery of the Right, they are the “job creators”.

Never mind the pathetically sluggish job growth since fellow aristocrat Bush gave them all tax cuts. He never did reduce unemployment to the level he inherited in 2000. No, they are not creating very many jobs, or if they do, most of them are in Asia. This is beside the point.

The point is we are being indoctrinated. The Right’s Orwellian Ministry of Truth has been unilaterally redefining terms to tilt public policy debates to the advantage of the wealthy elites. “Job creators” is this year’s Right wing “newspeak” propaganda success.

Rather than a cautionary tale of warning, the Right embraces “1984” as a “How to Guide” on winning elections and governing. The Decider practically quoted the “War is peace” slogan when he said, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.”

The Right likes to paint all small business owners as job creators too. There’s one so-called “job creator” who admits he never created any jobs. And Dana Milbank dares to say most others didn’t either.

Notice all the parrots now squawking on about not taxing “job creators” are the same ones who squawked hysterically about the health care act being a “government takeover of health care”. Dutiful dupes they are. So duped and dutiful they eagerly parroted Politifact’s 2010 Lie of the Year. Also dutifully parroted was the 2009 Lie of the Year, the infamous Palin-esque “death panels”.

Anybody else see a pattern emerging from these lies? Yes, they are Republican lies, proving again the only way they can attain power is by lying.

Specifically, “job creators” and “government takeover” are the products of Republican Minister of Propaganda Frank Luntz.

And Luntz is worried about the Occupy Wall Street message, as all the greedy aristocratic elites should be. In fact, he told the recent Republican Governors Association in Florida, "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

He even suggested they avoid the word “capitalism”. "I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

I guess they have a problem, since more and more people are waking up to the fact that the Republicans are the top defenders of Wall Street, along with generous help from corpodems. Unregulated capitalism is not only an immoral, or at least amoral, system, it has proven to be a failed system as well. As we know, there’s no such thing as the “free market” but that won’t stop them from perpetuating the lie.

For the latest on the Right’s Orwellian newspeak, see last Thursday’s Yahoo News article, “How Republicans Are Being Taught to Talk about Occupy Wall Street”.

Along with avoiding the word “capitalism” we learn that we shouldn’t say, “Government taxes the rich”. Most Americans want the rich to pay what they did before Bush. And Luntz warns about uttering the term “middle class”. “We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."

“Not sure about that” indeed.

And speaking of Wall Street, one very important word on the “Do not use list” is “bonus”. Hmm...I wonder why?

It’s probably a safe bet to predict the Lie of the Year for 2011 will also be a fabrication by the Right.