Move to Amend

Throughout the U.S. people are debating proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution that take aim at overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.  Unfortunately none of the the five amendments introduced into Congress thus far are comprehensive enough to successfully achieve this goal.  We believe the general public needs to inform themselves of the differences between amendments in order to join the conversation and advocate for an amendment that best represents their interests.

The Occupy Democracy working group of Occupy Petaluma studied six of the main amendments proposed to date, and came to the conclusion that the Constitutional Amendment proposed by Move to Amend goes the farthest toward leveling the playing field to accomplish the intent of representational democracy.  In contrast to the five amendments introduced into Congress, it would require — rather than empower — federal, state and local governments to regulate contributions both to political campaigns and ballot initiatives, including contributions made by candidates themselves.  It would also fix the legal technicality of “corporate personhood” which allowed the Supreme Court to rule that political spending by corporations and unions is “speech” protected by the first amendment.

Move to Amend contains the clearest language to ensure that all entities – for profit corporations, not-for-profit organizations such as PACs and Super PACs, as well as unions – will no longer be entitled under law to undermine our elections with unlimited contributions.   It would accomplish this by simply clarifying that the rights protected by the Constitution belong only to human beings, and not to artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.

Occupy Petaluma joins many other Occupy groups, as well as many city and county governments throughout the nation in supporting Move to Amend.

For a quick analysis of how the five amendments that have been proposed into Congress compare to that of Move to Amend  click here.

For those wanting to dig deeper, below is the full text of all six amendments including analysis and comparisons with Move to Amend.

1. Move to Amend Amendment Proposal

Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
________________________________________

2. Edwards Amendment Proposal
• Introduced by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) on September 12, 2011
H.J.RES.78
H. J. RES. 78
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 12, 2011
Ms. EDWARDS (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 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:
`Article–
`Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.
`Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’.

• Organizations involved: Free Speech for People

Commentary from Move to Amend
What it does:
• Clarifies the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations.
What’s missing:
• Does not address corporate constitutional rights (corporate personhood)
• Does not address the Supreme Court doctrine of money = free speech. Leaves the door wide open to wealthy individuals continuing to bankroll elections.
________________________________________

3. Schrader Amendment Proposal
• Introduced by Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) on July 13, 2011
• Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving Congress power to regulate campaign contributions for Federal elections.
• Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 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:
• `Article–
• `Section 1. The Congress shall have power to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the contribution of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to a Federal office in the United States and to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the expenditure of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents used to support or purchase media advertisements intended to influence the outcome of an election for Federal office in the United States.
• `Whenever Congress should exercise such power, it must apply equally and uniformly to all individual persons recognized as citizens of the United States.
• `Whenever Congress should exercise such power on associations of citizens of the United States, it must apply equally and uniformly to all associations of citizens of the United States.
• `Section 2. Each of the several States shall have power to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the contribution of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to public office in the State and to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate expenditure of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents used to support or purchase media advertisements intended to influence the outcome of an election for public office or plebiscite in the State.
• `Whenever a State should exercise such power, it must apply equally and uniformly to all individual persons recognized as citizens of the State.
• `Whenever a State should exercise such power on associations of citizens of the State, it must apply equally and uniformly to all associations of citizens of the State.
• `Section 3. A person who is not a citizen of the United States, including an association of persons who are not citizens of the United States, a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent thereof, may not contribute funds or donate in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to public office in the United States or otherwise expend funds or donate in-kind equivalents in a manner intended to influence the outcome an election for public office or plebiscite in the United States.
• `Section 4. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’.
• Organizations involved: ?

Commentary from Move To Amend
What it does:
• Reverses the Citizens United decision: affirms the power of Congress and the States to regulate contribution of funds to candidates and the expenditure of funds intended to influence the outcome of elections.
What’s missing:
• Does not address corporate constitutional rights (corporate personhood)
Additional Commentary from Occupy Democracy
• Places no limits on contributions for or against ballot initiatives
________________________________________

4. Udall Amendment Proposal
• Introduced by Senators Tom Udall (D-NM), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Mark Begich (D-AK) on November 1, 2011
• JOINT RESOLUTION
• Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.
• Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 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 by the Congress:
• `Article–
• `Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on–
• `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
• `(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
• `Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on–
• `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and
• `(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
• `Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’.

• Organizations involved: People for the American Way

Commentary from Move To Amend
What it does:
• Reverses the Citizens United Decision: affirms the power of Congress and the States to regulate contribution of funds to candidates and the expenditure of funds intended to influence the outcome of elections.
• Challenges the Buckley Decision (money is free speech) by giving Congress authority to regulate campaign spending and political contributions.
What’s missing:
• Does not address corporate constitutional rights (corporate personhood)
Additional Commentary from Occupy Democracy
• Places no limits on contributions for or against ballot initiatives
________________________________________

5. McGovern Amendment Proposal
• Introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) on November 15, 2011
• JOINT RESOLUTION
• Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
• Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 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:
• `Article–
• `Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
• `Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
• `Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.’.
• Organizations involved: Free Speech for People

Commentary from Move To Amend
What it does:
• Asserts that corporations are not people.
What’s missing:
• Does not address the Supreme Court doctrine of money = free speech. By not also addressing the doctrine of money as free speech it leaves the door wide open to wealthy individuals continuing to bankroll elections.
________________________________________

6. Deutch Amendment Proposal = Sander’s Amendment
• Introduced by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) on November 18, 2011
……………………………………………………………
(Original Signature of Member)
112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. J. RES. ll
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly
exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons
by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending
in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States
to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election
contributions and expenditures.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. DEUTCH introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on…
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the
States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 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:
‘‘ARTICLE‘‘
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

Organizations involved: Public Citizen

Commentary from Move To Amend
What it does:
• Asserts that for-profit and business corporations are not people.
• Gives Congress the authority to regulate corporations (unclear whether this is specific to for-profit/business corporations only).
• Overturns Citizens United in part: prohibits for-profit corporations and entities serving business interests from making political contributions or expenditures.
• Gives Congress the authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures and to institute disclosure requirements.
What’s missing:
• Personhood section only addresses for-profit corporations and “business corporations”. Does not address not-for-profit corporations/entities such as PACs (including Citizens United) or unions. Implies by omission that these entities may claim personhood rights under the Constitution.
• Unclear whether subsequent sections (regarding regulation of corporations and corporate campaign contributions/expenditures) also only apply to for-profit corporations. Wording seems to indicate that these sections do not apply to entities other than for-profit corporations or “business entities.”
________________________________________

7. Sanders Amendment Proposal
• Introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on December 8, 2011
• Same as Deutch amendment – see above

Commentary from Move To Amend
What it does:
• Asserts that for-profit and business corporations are not people.
• Gives Congress the authority to regulate corporations (unclear whether this is specific to for-profit/business corporations only).
• Overturns Citizens United in part: prohibits for-profit corporations and entities serving business interests from making political contributions or expenditures.
• Gives Congress the authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures and to institute disclosure requirements.
What’s missing:
• Personhood section only addresses for-profit corporations and “business corporations”. Does not address not-for-profit corporations/entities such as PACs (including Citizens United) or unions. Implies by omission that these entities may claim personhood rights under the Constitution.
• Unclear whether subsequent sections (regarding regulation of corporations and corporate campaign contributions/expenditures) also only apply to for-profit corporations. Wording seems to indicate that these sections do not apply to entities other than for-profit corporations or “business entities.”