At 10:28 PM 2/4/2012, Michael Pollak wrote:
>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
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)