I posted earlier about how some Democrats in the Congress, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass/8) want to amend the US Constitution to so as to mean that, "The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities... ."
The presumptive rationale for the amendment is a Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Comission) that invalidated the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known as BCRA or “McCain-Feingold”) that restricted corporate expenditures in elections. The Constitution as it is today protects the rights of "the people" or, on occasion "person" or persons." By excluding any kind of incorporated entity from being defined as part of the people or as a person before the law, the amendment strikes corporations out of entitlement to those protections. I cite extensive analysis by law professors Eugene Volokh and Ilya Somin in my post.
The first question of investigating politics, of course, is, "Who benefits?" And guess what, any political benefit that might be gained from the Supreme-Soviet-sounding "Peoples Rights Amendment" accrues almost wholly to Democrats. (I want to show you something. It's my shocked face.)
There are two main things to understand about the PRA (its full text is at my original post).
1. It permits but does not require state or local governments to dictate the activities (and not just political activities) of corporate entities. Taking action under its provision would be wholly at the discretion of a governor, attorney general or president. But hey, they would never resort to purely partisan political activities, would they?
2. The second thing is this chart from OpenSecrets.org of America's top political donors. The coding in the right column is self evident.
It's a safe bet that pretty much all these entities are incorporated somehow. It's an even safer bet that when political authority is majority Democrat, of the 28 corporations shown here (OpenSecrets lists 140 altogether), precisely six will come under Justice Department action.
Take, for example, Comcast Corp. Here is what its donation chart looks like:
Yep, a Democrat-led Justice Dept. is going jump all over Comcast, isn't it?
And when Republicans are in majority? Well, they are hoist on their own petard. Except for RINOs like Sen. John McCain, the Republicans won't support ratification of the amendment anyway. Since the PRA does not actually require any action to be taken, pretty much none will by Republicans, who still have a shred (though only a shred) of Constitutional fealty left in them.
What the PRA would also do is let governments shake down incorporated entities: "Hey, nice incorporated business/church/LLC you got here. Be a shame if it was suddenly seized one day because your contributions are going to the wrong party."
Oh, no, who am I kidding, the federal government would never bully corporations into compliance with its wishes, would it?
No one can possibly be surprised to understand that the "Peoples Rights Amendment" is not about protecting the rights of the people, but increasing the power of the government and the money supply of its officials. The more Orwellian the Democrats call an initiative, the more certainly they are out for themselves. Progressivism is not about helping the people. it is about protecting the power of progressives.
Posts
