Sounds like a great idea to me. The big corporations are already writing our legislation, but the Supremes don`t think that is enough, so they want them to run our elections also. Maybe we need another one to give the Supremes what they are worth, a one year term, or better yet, one month. Thanks, Bush, for packing our court with these kinds of members.

A better solution is to simply abolish corporate personhood.

For more on the fight to 'de-personalize' rights of corporations

find a copy (not an easy task these days) of:

"America, Inc: who owns and operates the United States"
By Morton Mintz, Jerry S. Cohen 1972

This book literally disappeared from library bookshelves within 1-2 years after publication. In the SF Bay Area, 1 individual checked out copies from at least 10 libraries and never returned them.
The book IS definitely about the heroics of individuals who for over 150 years have fought against granting 'personhood and personhood rights' to corporations.

Brandeis is one of the strongest. The reference in the article is definitely an understatement.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both," said Brandeis, the lion of law whose defenses of freedom of speech and the right to privacy renewed and extended the American experiment in the 20th century.

We should be following Nader in eliminating corporate personhood completely, not this half-hearted overly nuanced semi-effort. Don't we have to sell this to three quarters of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution?

The message has got to be simple and obviously true:

Corporations are not people.

But I did not see anything in the amendment proposal that denies "citizenship" to corporations. Without that the amendment will be toothless.

Gary

“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.”
-- George W. Bush

With all due respect to what Edwards and others are trying, this is a very poorly worded amendment in both sections, vague enough that lawyers can make mincemeat of them rather than their being legislation with teeth.

Section 1 says the Congress and the States can "regulate" the expenditure of funds in support of political speech by corporations; it does not forbid such expenditures, which is clearly what the amendments writers (and I) would like to see happen. Aforesaid smart corporate lawyers can say it was clearly the intent of the people that such practices would not be forbidden but only subject to regulation: and who knows what corporate-friendly regulation might come from, let's say, the corporately-friendly Congress that could well be in place as early the conclusion of the 2010 elections (assuming an all-too likely dominance of Republicans and Blue Dogs resulting from the ongoing "backlash" against Democratic mismanagement.)? I'm thinking, too, of what State regulation would come from my own state legislature in Florida, essentially bought and paid for by the developers and bankers who lend to them and which now exercises no "regulation" whatever on electioneering type campaigns funded by the likes of U.S.Sugar.

Section 2, strangely enough, says Section 1 cannot abridge the "freedom of the press." So, get ready, when those lawyers for the "press" go before a court to argue that they can't be denied the opportunity to make a buck by accepting campaign ads paid for by corporations. Since "freedom of the press" is nowhere defined in the Constitution (unless I've missed something in the Bill of Rights), these lawyers well might argue that we do have "restraint of trade" and patent laws that do allow corporations to make profits, so you're infringing the "freedom of the press" in denying them this opportunity, so go ahead, ye corporations, and plunk down your millions for TV advertising and even info-mercials.

I'm just sayin'

The corporations who wanted to were ALREADY controlling elections before the SCOTUS decision. They've been backchannelling money to corporate-friendly candidates for decades, along with pumping maximum legal amounts of money into their coffers. McCain-Feingold was an anemic regulation on some of the very worst corporate domination of elections, sort of the Kyoto treaty on corporate influence in politics, but the SC ruling has nullified even that. So now they own Washington and even state legislatures outright.

The chances of passing such an amendment are even slimmer than the chances of getting Medicare for All under an Obama regime. Corporations have gamed the system in advance for blocking any such amendment. Their lobbyists will simply buy off as many legislators as they need to, just as they do in every other instance. It's much like pleading with Congress to stop giving itself pay raises during a recession, or to sacrifice their own free medical care, payed by us nobodies, until we have something similar. Never happen.

We can especially expect this bill to go nowhere since John Conyers is sponsoring it, even though I don't doubt Donna Edwards' sincerity. But Conyers has been in the habit for years of sponsoring all kinds of radical-seeming bills and then refusing to fight for any of them. He holds all kinds of basement hearings, question and answer sessions, that are completely ineffective and inconsequential, and he'll sit silently in a committee discussing his own legislation, claiming his hands are tied, or whatever lame excuse is convenient. I expect nothing from Conyers.

This is a nice try, but it needs to go MUCH further. Remove the entire idea of corporate personhood, which is complete BS from the get go.

Secondly, it should really implement a system of PUBLICLY funded elections where NO private money is allowed AT ALL. None from the candidate's family, none from private individuals, none from ANY corporation or business. Anyone found trying it gets jail time, automatically. BOTH parties, if the transfer of funds actually happened. NO exceptions.

Until we get rid of private money in it's entirety, our elections will continue to stink to high heaven, and all we will get for it will be screwed. Just like we are NOW.

Regardless of the proposed Amendment's shortcomings, I want to recognize (and ask others to do the same) Congresswoman Edwards' courage and integrity in taking the lead on this issue. There are very few politicians who don't make me nauseous; Kucinich and Sanders come to mind.

I am delighted to add Edwards to this tiny group. Good on you, Congresswoman.

Let's see how cons rationalize against it.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."
Benito Mussolini

The problem isn't the corporations, it's the wealthy for whom they stand. Medieval monarchs had castles; today's wealthy have corporations.

The problem is the equation

WEALTH = POWER

Unlimited wealth and democracy can't coexist (at least the "of the people, by the people and for the people" variety).

As long as a relatively few people have virtually all the disposable income, we will continue to live in a plutocracy (a government of, by and for the rich).

A decent step in the right direction; but as is all too typical with Democratic politicians (whom seem to not want to piss off the corporations too much), not nearly enough.
A proper 28th Amendment would state that only natural born persons are entitled to constitutional protections.

I am not sold on this ammendment at all. It's limited in all the wrong ways and it will not actually pass.

I would support an ammendment making clear that constitutional provisions that apply to "persons" apply to corporations only to the extent to which explicit federal laws apply specific constitutional provisions.

This will ensure that due process, normal property rights and other aspects of economic stability and justice can be assured as well as specific requirements of corporate behavior.

ezeflyer,
Interesting you should bring up fascism. Some say that without Brandeis and his courage, the US would have supported the fascists in WWII.

Follow up on America, Inc.

Book does not seem to available for purchase on any site.

Same for ANY book by one of the co-authors - Milton Mintz

A complete list of Mintz's books makes the lack of availability of any of them seem like Stalinist censorship at work:

1. For prescription only:The therapeutic nightmare; a report on the roles of the United States Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and others in connection with the irrational and massive use of prescription drugs that may be worthless, injurious, or even lethal.
Publication Information Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1965.

2.At any cost : corporate greed, women and the Dalkon Shield / by Morton Mintz.
Publication Information New York : Pantheon Books, 1985.

3.Power, inc. : public and private rulers and how to make them accountable / Morton Mintz & Jerry S. Cohen.
Publication Information New York : Viking Press, 1976.

4.Quotations from President Ron / [compiled by] Morton and Margaret Mintz.
Publication Information London: Father/Daughter Ventures, 1986.
Edition 1st ed.
*** Nobody in US would publish this one.

5.America, Inc.: who owns and operates the United States [by] Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen.
Publication Information New York, Dial Press, 1971.

I look at the comments thus far (18) and can only imagine what objections (valid and invalid)will be brought forth when serious discussion and organized opposition get going.
So I am going to add my two cents: Let the lawyers write the amendment, but I think that all contributors to any campaign, even issues only campaigns, should be required to openly state the County and State in which they are registered voters. If not registered to vote then they should be unable to influence those who do vote. This would knock out all corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. The CEO of a corporation would be allowed to express his/her opinions but not at the cost to the shareholders. The Union President could talk until he is blue in the face, but not at the cost to the members. By the same token, volunteers in a campaign each would be required to be registered voters (no underage who don't know what they are talking about.)
Such a restriction could even be used by the media in court to sue a company that canceled its advertising in a given paper or on a station because it did not like the editorial slant. That would be construed as an attempt to influence the voters.
And in light of our recent experiences with the national GOP effort to restrict the right to vote, this would be keeping in line with the efforts to "clean up the electorate", but at the expense of eliminating those very people who tried so hard to eliminate all ethnic minorities from the vote.
We could use the slogan: If you can't vote it, you can't preach it.

I agree with the responses here; it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. It will be a big fight, big distraction over nothing. Under the current system, Congress already "regulates" corporate money, and our problem is not limited to corporations. AIPAC is the biggest influence on Congress. Technically, there are some other biggies like AARP and the NRA, but AIPAC puts the interest of another nation ahead of our own even when we have conflicts of interest. AIPAC also brings up the issue of separation of church and state. We are not supposed to be beholden as a nation to any religion. And in return for shutting down the biggies, we would also see unions and other advocates limited in the amount of money they can spend. Speech, yes. Let AIPAC and all the others speak as much as they want. Spend, no. It used to be call bribery, and that is what it still is.

Corporations are not people and do not have the rights of citizens. They exist to serve us, not the other way around. And for equality of speech to be meaningful in elections, not only must the candidates be able to speak for all interests equally, but the candidates from which we get to chose cannot be limited by a corporate fee for entrance. This is how we wind up with the charade of two parties but only one choice.

This proposal reminds me of when people were calling for getting the corruption of money out of elections and we got the pitiful response of McCain-Feingold instead of real reform. The Ds should put up proposals for real changes or take a deck chair and enjoy what's left of the voyage.

jld overseas

Check http://www.mortonmintz.com/index.htm

But I could be wrong !

This was totally expected because constitutional amendments are what parties do when they need to shut up their base. Remember that Reagan and the newly empowered Republicans put forth a balanced budget amendment at the same time that they ran up the debt in the early 80's. It's the old college try they can trot out to silence critics from their own party during the next election cycle.

From the article's inset quote of the proposed amendment:

"That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within SEVEN YEARS after the date of its submission for ratification:" (my emphasis)

It'll be too late even if it had teeth. It's probably already too late if it were approved tomorrow.

Hell, the Congress hasn't done squat to obtain Diebold's "proprietary" voting machine code, which is an even more direct slap at democracy.

As for Conyers, he's probably compromised; isn't his wife under investigation in that Detroit scandal that stopped being news?

-30-

Why not just go after the wording of the 14th Amendment to dis-allow corporations to be considered "persons" or human beings...they are not human beings. I am tired of Democrats (and/or Republicans) who want to enact legislation which will ultimately be up for interpretation by the very Supreme Court that counters legal disputes in the first place, trying to do such moronic acts in the first place.

JUST REPEAL TAFT/HARTLY (don't enact some piece of swiss cheese legislation which gives workers MORE protection in unionizing and don't enact some piece of swiss cheese legislation which gives corporations PERAMETERES for being able to give or not give money to a PAC or a PARTY or a CANDIDATE....JUST DON'T ADD CONFUSION TO THE FRICKIN PROBLEM YOU ARE TRYING TO SOLVE!

Or are you trying to solve a problem??? That is the real question here!

SMOKE AND MIRRORS MY FRIENDS....SMOKE AND MIRRORS!!

1) Not against an amendment if properly worded.
2) Shouldn't need a constitutional amendment to ban corporations with foreign stockholders (even 1) from influencing the outcome of US elections.
3) Still waiting on a constitutional amendment to get passed that gives Washington DC citizens full electoral representation (amazing what the US can't do - 1978 attempt failed on expiration).

this is standard fare...a purposefully inadequate action allowed to appear as 'well-intentioned, but poorly crafted'...just as there are only so many plot lines in literature, so in politics...

these are the masters of the 'gee, we tried so hard, but' school, remember?

once again, they only answer to their own...how cozy...

Conyers? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Kerry? ouch

Such an amendment sends a message that our democracy is not for sale to big corporations.