excerpts from “Abolish Corporate Personhood” blog; read the full text here.
There are many reasons why a principled conservative would want to have the Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court decision reversed by abolishing corporate personhood and ending the doctrine that money is a form of speech. Whereas an unprincipled conservative
will put the interests of corporations (property) ahead of the interests of citizens no matter what the consequences, a principled conservative would be concerned about the common good of the Republic
Conservative Reasons to Abolish Corporate Constitutional Rights
The word corporation does not occur in the Constitution. Corporations had to use unelected, unaccountable judges to give them rights.
According to Thomas Jefferson, judges, who grant corporations rights, are “playing God” because he claimed in the Declaration of Independence that men — not property — are “ordained by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
Judge-made law is not democratic. We did not elect the Supreme Court justices, but they get to decide who does and does not count in our democratic order. Congress and the People should decide those issues.
This is not about opposing business or capitalism, and we recognize that corporations play an important role in society. Continue reading
“Money in politics is not a distraction from the economy, it is the economy.”
New poll, findings as summarized by CampaignMoney.org
- Money in politics is not a distraction from the economy, it is the economy. For ordinary Americans, this is not an either/or proposition; it is not question of addressing money in politics at the expense of talking about pocketbook problems. Voters believe that Washington is so corrupted by big banks, big donors, and corporate lobbyists that it no longer works for the middle class.
- Voters feel strongly about reducing the influence of big money in politics and there is broad-based support to alternatives to the current system. Voters are supportive of small-donor matching systems with limited public financing and support common sense restrictions on what corporations and wealthy donors can spend on politics.
- Voters will strongly support candidates — from both political parties — who seize this issue. Voters do not currently trust either party to tackle money in politics. All voters, and swing voters in particular, strongly support candidates who are willing to take on money in politics as a serious campaign issue. In fact, more than a third of all voters make this a litmus test for their support.
See more here.
Many people look on successful candidates as being bought and paid for by whomever gave the most money.
To make representative government work the way the framers designed it, elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people,
not to the wealth of groups who speak only for selfish fringes of the whole community.
The public does not have any doubt about the power of money.
Every poll taken shows that the vast majority of Americans believe campaign spending is a very serious problem and that those who contribute large sums of money have too much influence over the government.
Our nation is facing a crisis of liberty if we do not control campaign expenditures.
We must prove that elective office is not for sale.
We must convince the public that elected officials are what James Madison intended us to be, agents of the sovereign people, not the hired hands of rich givers.
A Conservative Voice for Reform from Battles Past