Home | About | Donate

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

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

Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Greg Coleridge

As the nation was fixated last week on the Congressional testimony of Donald Trump’s “fixer” of all his crises, Michael Cohen, easily overlooked were other Congressional actions -- one of which would fundamentally fix the deepening crisis of corporate rule that assaults people, places and the planet -- and makes authentic democracy impossible.

The We the People Amendment (HJR 48), introduced by Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA), would establish that:

4 Likes

A very positive first step but do remember there are other Countries that do not see the Corporation as a person yet those Countries are still under Corporate rule.

See the scandal here in Canada as example regarding SNC Lavalin.

For another example look to Greece. The Country has all but surrendered its sovereignty to foreign banks and corporations.

2 Likes

This seems to be a fix for corporate personhood. The problem is that Trump needs to sign it. Does anyone believe that he will? Any bets?

Good news, Donald: The President doesn’t get a say in amending the Constitution!

Under Article V of the Constitution, constitutional amendments requires 2/3 of Congress (290 House Reps, 67 Senators) to vote for it, and then 3/4 of States (38 States) to ratify it. No presidential signature required.

Trump can posture and pout all he wants, but then we can remind him what 2015’s Trump said about campaign finance publicly during one of the GOP debates:

“You better believe it… I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that’s a broken system.” (Source: Vox, 8/6/2015)

2 Likes

Let’s cease with the obfuscating. Simply put: Corporate rule - fascism

2 Likes

Time for you to get to start getting up to speed on the difference between businesses with shareholders (corporations) and ‘corporatism’ and realize that actual ‘Fascism’ is the last thing that business (big or small, privately owned or incorporated) in the U.S. would want to have anything to do with (their ideal world would be 19th century laissez-faire or as little interference by the State as possible). The U.S. ruling class is quite content with how things have been arranged from the ‘get go’ and certainly wouldn’t want or believe the need for anything as outlined in the this article:
‘Corporatism and the Ghost of the Third Way’**
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.939&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Always best to know exactly who and what you are opposing without being misdirected or deceived by confirmation bias.

** ‘Fascists’ and ‘National Socialists’ of the 2nd quarter of the 20th century claimed to be the ‘3rd way’ between ‘plutocracy’ (in liberal democracies) and ‘communism’.

1 Like

we’re pretty much there now ! Unions gone , pensions gone … all the progressive reforms that came during the early 20th century have been chipped away at or killed entirely

Ilhan Omar got it exactly right – It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.

Money isn’t speech. Corporations aren’t people.

Take the money out of politics and power shifts from the 1% to the rest of us.

This is a good start but needs more teeth around banning corporate contributions. It does help the public understand what has happened but it is also a symptom of big money interests getting their politicians in office. The current SCOTUS will shoot it down, claiming it conflicts with the 14th amendment (or whatever narrative they want to claim).

The public keeps electing people who are crooked and make money from insider trading and have personal conflicts-of-interest. A clear recent example is that Donald Trump’s business are profiting from his presidency and he is in violation of the Emoluments clause of the US Constitution. The House Democrats need to press charges (Articles of Impeachment) against him for this but instead are chasing inconclusive leads of Russian-Trump collusion.

Obviously 501©(4) corporations were involved in getting Trump elected but the same is true for any leading presidential candidate.

Congress was found to be profiting from insider trading which lead to the STOCK Act. However that act didn’t prevent Pelosi and others from acting out in their personal best interests:
https://represent.us/action/insider-trading/

Pelosi apparently was helping her husband Paul Pelosi make money from federal government investments increasing real estate values: https://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-subsidies-benefit-husbands-investment-in-dem-mega-donors-company/

Pelosi’s approval rating is actually lower than Trump’s. Yet the Democrats don’t primary her and keep voting her in as a leader. The same is true for Schumer and Feinstein, BTW.

Does it also reign in the supreme power of “Supreme Court”. We don’t need unelected people reigning terror over us for their life time. The “supremes” as I call them has been corrupted and overtaken by corporate rule. They need to be gone and then if their is still a need for a Supreme Court many rules have to be put in place.

“The current SCOTUS will shoot it down, claiming it conflicts with the 14th amendment (or whatever narrative they want to claim).”

Are you talking about HR1 (legislation) or HJR 48 (constitutional amendment)? Just like the president, SCOTUS has no say on passing/ratifying constitutional amendments. If HJR 48 passes, SCOTUS would no longer be allowed to apply the 14th Amendment to corporations or other artificial entities created by state law. They also wouldn’t be allowed to interpret the 1st Amendment’s free speech protections to include political spending, campaign finance regulation would be an explicit duty of Congress and the States, and all permissible campaign contributions would require public disclosure.

It’s important to remember how the problem goes much deeper than just money in politics. And it’s not just a political issue either.

2 Likes

You are right. I saw it as I read it. All arguments end up eventually in the SCOTUS. Then what?
And people will kill to maintain their right to buy favor. Good luck with that amendment fight.

1 Like

Thank you for your response.

Time for you to start thinking multinationally/transnationally/globally; and, realize that various meanings/usages of a word such as “fascism” can change or develop over time.

Nitpik on this, if you feel like spending the time:

What Is Corporate Fascism? Is The Government Of The United States A Fascist Form Of Government?

Including the rather basic film:
CORPORATE FASCISM - The Destruction of America’s Middle Class

Excellent! A fine example of actually realistic thinking, that goes directly at what our problems actually are, instead of “realistically” nibbling endlessly around the edges.

i’m a member of Move to Amend. It’s just one approach, but seeking a Consitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood is an important piece of the puzzle.

1 Like

This is not some fly-by-night new proposal.

Since 2010, hundreds of communities have already passed ballot initiatives and municipal resolutions with language calling for abolishing all forms of corporate constitutional rights and money in elections defined as First Amendment-protected “free speech” - movetoamend(dot)org/resolutions-map

In addition, hundreds of organizations have endorsed this approach – movetoamend(dot)org/organizations

2 Likes

Thanks for the links which sum up the whole confusion.
The author of this https://hubpages.com/politics/What-Is-Corporate-Fascism-Is-The-Government-Of-The-United-States-a-Fascist-Form-Of-Governance is equally clueless about what ‘corporatism’ was.
(Primarily due a translated quote of Mussolini which had the word ‘corporate’ in it.)

It is also seems to be a particular American ignorance and inability to recognize that its ramshackle attempt at ‘democracy’ has always been open to to the most influence from vested interests that desire the least intervention from the state (with the exception of protecting their interests elsewhere by force of arms). Governance of the U.S. may be characterized a de facto ‘plutocracy’ (the strength of which waxes and wanes from period to period) but it has next to nothing to do with Mussolini’s version of corporatism.

How things are named and called can be extremely important and if named incorrectly can lead to misdirection and a confusion which can only serve to maintain the status quo.

Although it doesn’t seem to have had had lasting traction ‘inverted totalitarianism’ was an attempt to explain the possible direction the U.S. is heading but it also was not the ‘corporatism’ of the historical ‘Fascists’ and ‘National Socialists’.

Agreed…

As Ali_Kendrick said, SCOTUS has no say on this. When there are constitutional amendments, they CHANGE the constitution so SCOTUS is forced to obey constitution as newly amended. They don’t get to weigh in on the amendment at all, during the process.

1 Like

The supreme court cannot “shoot down” a constitutional amendment.

I agree … it would be hard for the SCOTUS to disregard the new amendment if the language is very explicit. I thought “artificial persons” was a SCOTUS invention to create this fraud in the first place.

Although corporate citizenship is easily seen to be a fraud, I don’t see 2/3 of the state governors ratifying the amendment. They are also in the pocket of the major corporations that benefit. The same corporations that would publically challenge this as a democratic-socialist plot.

If Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency, perhaps he could use the bully pulpit to change the consciousness of the country towards fundamental reforms. He is the only candidate who can.

If this amendment gets ratified, it still allows rich individuals people to give over $106,500 / year via the national committees amongst others (see first line for Individuals):