Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, January 13, 2012 by CommonDreams.org
Portland, Maine Joins Growing Movement to Push Back Against Citizens United
“Citizens United subverts the essence of democracy"
Thanks to an effort by a Portland City Councilor, Maine could be among the states working to fight back against the US Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United.
The Bangor Daily News reports:
The city of Portland could soon join an effort to reject so-called corporate personhood, the controversial extension of constitutional free speech rights to allow unfettered political spending by corporations.
City Councilor David Marshall is proposing a resolution that, if adopted by the larger council, would urge Maine’s congressional delegation and other federal lawmakers to support a constitutional amendment to throw out corporate personhood.[...]
“The great wealth of large corporations allows them to wield coercive force of law to overpower the votes of human beings and communities, thus denying We the People’s exercise of our constitutional rights,” the resolution states, in part. “The judicial and political bestowal of civil and political rights upon corporations usurps basic human and constitutional rights guaranteed to human persons.”
According to the Portland Press Herald:
Marshall said the Occupy Wall Street movement and its local version, Occupy Maine, inspired him to submit the resolution. One of the movement's core grievances is that the United States has a political system open to corruption, with representative democracy taken over by corporate and special interests.
Marshall said the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Citizens United has allowed corporations to spend unlimited funds on political advertising. In the 5-4 ruling, which gave corporations and unions freedom to spend as much as they want to support or attack candidates, the court said corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people.
The movement to overturn Citizens United has gotten widespread support. From a release from People For the American Way today:
More than 60 organizations have now joined the effort to combat the anti-democratic corporate and special interest spending in our elections made possible by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, by supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision. The movement to fix the Supreme Court’s dangerously flawed decision is being supported by advocacy groups like MoveOn.org, think tanks like Demos, and a range of important allies like the Communications Workers of America (CWA) which recently became the first labor union to take up the cause. Through this effort, millions of Americans are taking action to ensure that our democracy responds to the needs of the American people, not just the bottom lines of wealthy special interests.
For thousands of American citizens, elected officials and progressive organizations standing together to demand a constitutional amendment to reverse the effects of Citizens United, this is a “movement moment.” Now is the time to demand that the American people – and not wealthy special interests and corporations – hold the keys to our democracy.
Public Citizen president Robert Weissman stated today:
“Citizens United subverts the essence of democracy, which means rule by the people,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “Overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision with a constitutional amendment is the first step in fixing our broken political system and opening the door to address the great challenges facing the country, from putting people back to work to averting catastrophic climate change.”
- Posted in
Comments are closed


8 Comments so far
Show AllGood luck to them. Ultimately the only way to overturn, (you can't repeal a verdict) is to either add an amendment to the Constitution or get a different case which contests the law AS WELL as some other aspect of law all the way to the SC and have them rule differently. You can't simply try the same case or points of law again, it has to be more encompassing. The correct route is the amendment and I hope that I live to see that one.
Exactly. This is an inaccurate and uniformed headline and opening paragraph. One doesn't "repeal" a Supreme Court decision. One attempts to render the decision void by (in this case) amending the U.S. Constitution and effectively overturning the validity of the decision.
It's exciting to see this Constitutional amendment effort gaining momentum. If left standing as-is, Citizens United will be the final stake through the heart of what little remains of true "democracy" in this increasingly corrupt republic of ours.
Many parallel efforts are underway. For those who are interested, I encourage you to visit Sen. Bernie Sanders' website, where you can sign the petition for HIS version of a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Take a few minutes of your time to be counted.
Occupy the OYEZ!
Link to Bernie Sanders site:
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
The problem with overturning Citizens United, is that it does nothing to address the real problems, and assumes everything was just fine and dandy before Citizens Untied. I would argue that Citizens United is merely the logical outcome of our perverse system.
Within the confines of our current system, the only sensible way to approach Citizens United is a constitutional amendment clearly stating that corporations are not people. This would solve once and for all the myriad of problems created by corporate personhood, of which citizens united is perhaps the most egregious.
Without addressing the underlying problems, we will only encounter other "citizens united" further on down the road.
I hate to tell y'all this, but 'one city councilman' does not equate to 'an enttire state'.
So sorry .....
"the controversial extension of constitutional free speech rights"
Take a poll and find out who calls Citizens Unnitted controversial. The elites who benefit from it call it controversial. But the people call it criminal. So, err, umm, why would Common Dreams call it controversial? I would think the rewards are going to come from the people, not from the elites, so why use the elite's language?
Citizens United, a government by the corporations for the corporations.