The Udall "Democracy for All" amendment is a Red Herring

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. 

Corporations have more constitutional rights than humans

We have reached a point in history in which aggregates of capital (corporations) now have the inalienable human rights described in the Bill of Rights, i.e., Free Speech, petition the government for redress of grievances, unreasonable searches and seizures, due process of law, and a speedy trial. These "Rights" have all been granted not by Congress, which makes laws, but by the Supreme Court, which refines laws made by Congress.

In the wake of the Civil War, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment defined who can be a citizen. The 14th Amendment then goes on to state that "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...." Clever corporate railroad lawyers decided to exploit the 14th Amendment in order to increase corporate power and wealth. Corporations have been considered "fictional persons" since English Common Law was codified in the 12th century. The legal fictional of corporate personhood facilitated their being taxed by government and sued in court.

In 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the court affirmed the right of a corporation to get due process of law under the 14th Amendment. Although it may be clear to you or me that the 14th Amendment was intended for freed slaves, the fact is that the term "person" was not defined. It didn't say "black persons" or "natural persons" or "fictional persons;" it just said "person." So corporate lawyers argued that corporate persons are to be included, and the Supreme Court let it happen. Now, more than a century of legal precedents have been built on that fateful case.

The State of Vermont passed a law requiring that all Vermont dairy products be labeled if they contain Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), a product manufactured by Monsanto. In 1996, the Supreme Court struck down that Vermont law in International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy (the VT attorney general). The Court ruled that the right to Free Speech also implies the right NOT TO SPEAK! And so the Supreme Court awarded an international dairy food association more rights under the U.S. Constitution than the citizens of Vermont!

Right now, several states are running campaigns to label GMO's in food (more Monsanto products). Yet, based on the 1996 SCOTUS precedent, corporate persons have the right NOT TO SPEAK; therefore, no GMO labeling law will survive judicial review as long as corporations have constitutional rights.

Members of Congress have been bought and paid for by corporations due to our current system of privately financed election campaigns. The amount of money spent on election campaigns is obscene. Therefore, we can't expect Congress to correct this error. Anyway, Congress can't overrule the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court CAN overrule Congress! The way to correct this 127 year old misappropriation of justice is with a constitutional amendment driven by We the People.

A dozen or more amendments have been proposed in Congress to correct what is often framed as "the damage done by Citizen's United." The system was broken long before the 2010 Citizen's United decision, so this framing of the problem is a distraction from the real issue. Overturning Citizen's United will only return us to an era of inadequate campaign finance regulations. Regulations don't work because the regulatory boards are always staffed with industry insiders who weaken regulations in favor of corporate profits over the health and well being of the People.

H.J.Res 29, the amendment proposed by Rep. Rick Nolan of Minnesota, is the only proposal that eliminates ALL corporate personhood rights under the Constitution.  It is the first and most fundamental step in erecting a Wall of Separation Between Corporation and State. 

In order to rescue democracy in the USA, please demand that your Representative in Congress co-sponsor H.J. Res. 29, the We the People Amendment. Move to Amend