The "Democracy for All" (Udall) amendment is a Red Herring and I am surprised that Bernie Sanders is said to be promoting it. Even Bernie's "Saving American Democracy" Amendment proposal is far superior to this tiny bone. It fails to bar corporations or other artificial entities from having rights protected under the Constitution. And it returns us to a century of failed campaign regulation. It uses the word "may" instead of "shall."
In other words, this amendment proposal is getting LOTS of press because it fails to mandate a ban on corporate personhood rights while promoting the false hope that regulatory boards protect people over industry profits. Unfortunately, is is too often the opposite.
Free Speech for People apologizes about supporting this bill saying that they are also promoting a separate bill to ban corporate rights. Unfortunately, that bill has no momentum.
I recommend when our California Senators debate the Udall bill this coming month, that they bring up the following issues:
1) The campaign finance regulations in Arizona will be VERY different than those in Vermont.
2) Do regulations really work? Industry insiders tend to be the "experts" staffing regulatory boards and they habitually regulate loopholes in favor of their industry rather than protect the People.
3) Ultimately, as long as large donations can buy politicians, Democracy is an impossible sham. When campaigns will be publicly financed and limited to just a couple of months with private money prohibited, then public servants will bend in favor of those that pay for their campaigns, the public. This will hopefully be the next constitutional amendment to get all big money out of politics once and for all!
4) Regulations didn't work for most of the 20th century, what makes you think an amendment will make failed regulations any better? Do we have to wait for another century of failed regulations before elections are publicly financed?
5) The root cause of this perversity of Democracy is the implication by the Supreme Court in 1886 that fictional persons get the due process of law promised to "all persons" in the 14th Amendment. Any amendment proposal that doesn't pluck out the root by clarifying the status of fictional persons under the Constitution will ultimately miss the mark. The Udall Amendment bypasses this question by saying that artificial entities "may" be distinguished from natural persons... Its failure to clearly mandate that the protection of constitutional rights are for natural persons only makes it a waste of political capital.
In other words, this amendment proposal is getting LOTS of press because it fails to mandate a ban on corporate personhood rights while promoting the false hope that regulatory boards protect people over industry profits. Unfortunately, is is too often the opposite.
Free Speech for People apologizes about supporting this bill saying that they are also promoting a separate bill to ban corporate rights. Unfortunately, that bill has no momentum.
I recommend when our California Senators debate the Udall bill this coming month, that they bring up the following issues:
1) The campaign finance regulations in Arizona will be VERY different than those in Vermont.
2) Do regulations really work? Industry insiders tend to be the "experts" staffing regulatory boards and they habitually regulate loopholes in favor of their industry rather than protect the People.
3) Ultimately, as long as large donations can buy politicians, Democracy is an impossible sham. When campaigns will be publicly financed and limited to just a couple of months with private money prohibited, then public servants will bend in favor of those that pay for their campaigns, the public. This will hopefully be the next constitutional amendment to get all big money out of politics once and for all!
4) Regulations didn't work for most of the 20th century, what makes you think an amendment will make failed regulations any better? Do we have to wait for another century of failed regulations before elections are publicly financed?
5) The root cause of this perversity of Democracy is the implication by the Supreme Court in 1886 that fictional persons get the due process of law promised to "all persons" in the 14th Amendment. Any amendment proposal that doesn't pluck out the root by clarifying the status of fictional persons under the Constitution will ultimately miss the mark. The Udall Amendment bypasses this question by saying that artificial entities "may" be distinguished from natural persons... Its failure to clearly mandate that the protection of constitutional rights are for natural persons only makes it a waste of political capital.
No comments:
Post a Comment