Newspaper Page Text
Expanded
Local News
with Natl Shedd
and Alexia Ridley
n p r
706-542-9842
www.wuga.org
Your Oasis for Ideas
and the Arts
WIIGA is a broadcast service oi the university oi Georgia
"(Athens
Favorites
WINNER'
VM & WONDER
VOTED ATHENS* FAVORITE TATTOO
STUDIO THREE YEARS IN A ROW!
Provided by
Virtue &Vice, Inc.
Athens Own
Randy Smyre &
Bethra Szumski
Association
Professional Piercers
Board Member
(m
wKpainanqwonqeivi
flagpole
ENCOURAGES 1
YOU TO
BUY LOCAL
ml year!
???ROUND!
PERS0NH00D
ALL Athenians are invited to come to the
Two Story Coffeehouse in Five Points (1680
S. Lumpkin St.) on Thursday, Dec. 5, to hear
David Cobb, nationaL spokesman for the Move
to Amend movement. Cobb, a former Green
Party presidentiaL candidate, wiLL be speak
ing at 7 p.m. about the need for a new con-
stitutionaL amendment to aboLish corporate
personhood.
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's
Citizens United decision in 2010, a growing
number of peopLe are reaching the concLusion
that an amendment is now required to estab-
Lish the fact that corpora
tions are not reaL peopLe,
and poLiticaL funding is
not free speech.
The power of big
money to influence the
poLiticaL process needs
to be reguLated by government, but this has
become practicaLLy impossibLe to do because
of the numerous court decisions (culminat-
ing in Citizens United) that have mistakenLy
granted First Amendment rights to corpo
rations for spending on poLiticaL ads and
activities. Indeed, a number of constitutional
rights that should pertain
onLy to natural persons (i.e.
human beings) are now being
claimed by corporations pre
cisely in order to evade or
deflect appropriate reguLation
or Limitation. NevertheLess,
corporate personhood is a
LegaL fiction whose primary
purpose is to enabLe a corpo
rate entity to be identified as
a party to a contract. As an
artificial entity, a corporation
does not have inalienable
human rights. What it has are
accorded privileges within a
Limited sphere of operation.
Obviously, one of the
main purposes of the pro
posed amendment is to
prevent the holders of
concentrated wealth from
using its unequaled power to
sway elections. Most people
understand that the principle
of one person, one vote is
undermined if concentrated
wealth is permitted to dominate the politi
cal discussion that precedes elections. If, as
some have said, spending money is essential
to disseminating speech, then the lack of
money must have the effect of preventing
speech from being heard
adequately. Arguably,
faced with the important
task of choosing a can
didate for elected office,
the people have a right
to hear all the candidates
equally well, which cannot
be done if differences in wealth make possible
considerable differences in dissemination.
Thus, it is strange that the Supreme Court
would recognize the close connection between
speech and money without simultaneously
recognizing that to have little or no money
means that little to none of your speech will
be heard by voters. Most of the time, outside
of politics, this doesn't matter, but for the
purpose of participating in a democratic elec
tion, the voters have a right to have equal
access to all the candidates, which can only
happen if the case for each candidate is fully
disseminated. In my opinion, that's why, in
a democracy, elections ought to be publicly,
not privately, funded. Otherwise, you have a
plutocracy.
Be that as it may, Cobb will explain the
basis for the proposed amendment more
clearly than I can do here, and he will end
his presentation with a lively question-and-
answer session. A sampling of his presenta
tions throughout the country can be found on
YouTube. The exact wording of the amendment
he will discuss can be found on the Move
to Amend website at
movetoamend.org. In
addition to this website,
there are two excellent
books on the history and
effects of corporate per
sonhood: Corporations Are
Not People (2012) by Jeffrey D. Clements and
Unequal Protection (2010) by Thom Hartmann.
The reaction against the Citizens United
decision has been breathtaking. Anyone
who's interested in this reaction will be fas
cinated to watch democracy in action on two
extremely short YouTube videos. The first video
("Move to Amend, Arlington, VA") shows the
Arlington County Board voting unanimously
in 2012 in favor of a resolution supporting
the amendment. The second video ("Move to
Amend, Alexandria, VA") shows the Alexandria
City Council also voting
unanimously in 2013 in
favor of a similar resolu
tion. As of July 2013,
500 such resolutions have
reportedly been passed all
across America.
To the best of my
knowledge, whenever the amendment issue
has been presented for a vote, support for
it has been overwhelming. It has come from
political groups all across the spectrum???
right, left and center. Why? Because it is
not a partisan issue. It is not identified with
any particular ideology or policy. Instead, it
is about enabling the people of the United
States to reclaim their rightful place in
politics.
Carl Rapp
Corporations are not
real people, and political
funding is not free speech.
David Cobb
Whenever the amendment
issue has been presented
for a vote, support for it
has been overwhelming.
6 FLAGPOLE.COM ??? DECEMBER 4, 2013
COURTESY OF MOVE TO AMEND