Jim McGovern (D-Mass) Introduces Amendment

[wolfpacmo]

Apparently, Congressman Jim McGovern has introduced a constitutional amendment bill to overturn corporate personhood: http://http://freespeechforpeople.org/McGovern.

We probably need to formulate some sort of official stance on this, no?

Edited to add:

Here's a direct link to download a .pdf of the proposed amendment: www.freespeechforpeople.com/sites/default/files/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf

[Lam]

Woah, lol, that's strikingly similar to what we have now (or at least what I plan to propose soon). It's good to know our amateur amendment writing skills resemble actual proposed amendments.

[wolfpacmo]

That was kind of my thought about it, as well!

Just hoping that the higher-ups at Wolf-Pac know about it. I tweeted it this morning, but it appears to have largely disappeared into the Great Twitter Void.

[wkrisanda]

This is fantastic news. This should definitely be shared around as much as possible. If we can garner a lot of popular support, then it'll be a lot more likely to go through.

Even if you aren't from Massachusetts, tell everyone you can about this amendment.

I e-mailed this info to Aaron. This is definitely a big step forward.

[wolfpacmo]

Nov 17, 2011 21:00:09 GMT -6 wkrisanda said:

This is fantastic news. This should definitely be shared around as much as possible. If we can garner a lot of popular support, then it'll be a lot more likely to go through.

Even if you aren't from Massachusetts, tell everyone you can about this amendment.

I e-mailed this info to Aaron. This is definitely a big step forward.

Thank you!

Looks like the WolfPAChq Twitter account tweeted about it this morning, which should help-- they have 700+ followers, compared to my 21.

[rustyhoundog]

Needless to say if you've read the proposed amendment, there is NO section dealing with the one thing most people want now; control of corporate money, or any money at all, in our political life.

We have abundant evidence that political money is the thing most destroying our nation and that most people are aware of that fact and want change in how we control political money.

[smibo]

On Nov. 17th, per his web site:

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

“No matter how long protesters camp out across America, big banks will continue to pour money into shadow groups promoting candidates more likely to slash Medicaid for poor children than help families facing foreclosure,” said Deutch in a statement provided to ThinkProgress. “No matter how strongly Ohio families fight for basic fairness for workers, the Koch Brothers will continue to pour millions into campaigns aimed at protecting the wealthiest 1%. No matter how fed up seniors in South Florida are with an agenda that puts oil subsidies ahead of Social Security and Medicare, corporations will continue to fund massive publicity campaigns and malicious attack ads against the public interest. Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people. I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.”

Gotta love that creative acronym, huh? Here's the link to a PDF of the actual proposed amendment:
teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf

While Deutch's amendment does address the issue of corporate money in politics, I still kinda think it's flawed in that it specifies "for-profit corporations", LLCs, etc., which would seem to open a loophole wherein non-profit organizations (think Heritage Foundation, for example) would be exempt.

Regardless of the relative merits of these competing amendments though, WolfPacMo has correctly pointed out that we (Wolf-PAC) really ought to have an "official" position on these. Seems likely that we may see more of these in the weeks and months ahead; we should try to get out in front of this apparently nascent congressional trend.