I've been pretty much convinced by Seth and Doug and others that "abolishing corporate personhood" is a half baked idea that does both too little and too much. So when I saw a recent Facebook meme asking people to sign up to Bernie Sander's proposed constitutional amendment, I expected find the usual problems. But on close inspection, it looks extremely canny. In short, it seems to use the momentum of this popular war cry to put through the real changes we'd like to put through.
Here's the short summary of its points, which first caught my attention:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Note point 4: "Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances." After 3 points banging the gong about corporations, that one says nothing about corporations. It's much broader and conceivably covers everything you'd want to regulate. Including specifically the donations of rich people who wouldn't be covered by the abolition of corporate personhood. This is essentially the "money isn't speech" amendment without making a big deal about it.
That leaves two other problems: that corporations are a valuable form we don't want to abolish; and that allowing the restriction of corporate rights opens the door to state restriction of the rights of non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood or Amnesty International.
But if you look at the full text, both seem quietly and concisely taken care of in the first paragraph:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Saving-American-Democracy.pdf
Corporate personhood is not abolished. Rather the more subtle and more useful distinction is made that they simply don't have the same rights as natural persons. (And hence that the bill of rights doesn't automatically apply to them -- only those portions we decide apply justified by usefulness to society.)
As for the Planned Parenthood objection, this same paragraph makes clear that this entire amendment only applies to for-profit corporations -- and for that matter, to all profit making entities, whether corporate or not.
In sum, it seems sound to me, as well as canny in the way harnesses the wave rather than fighting it. And in the end it seems to go pretty far in extending the rights of government to regulate business in general, not just in re campaigns. Is there something I'm missing?
Michael