PORTLAND, Maine — 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 U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 ruled by a 5-4 vote that limiting corporate or union political contributions equates to an infringement of the groups’ First Amendment right to free speech. The politically polarizing decision, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, helped trigger the proliferation of Super PACS — political action groups that can raise and expend unlimited funds in support of candidates or issues often without disclosing donors until after voting takes place.
“We have codified in case law something that is, on its face, ridiculous,” City Councilor John Anton told the Bangor Daily News. “The implications of it on campaign finance are distressing to me. There’s been a struggle throughout history between popular movements and the influence exerted through wealth. The corporate personhood fiction exacerbates the influence of wealth on government, and that is something I think should be checked.”
In his resolution, Marshall argues that the extension of constitutional rights to corporations ultimately results in the infringement of the constitutional rights of individual citizens. Other cities that have approved similar resolutions include Los Angeles and New York City.
“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.”
Marshall said corporations, unlike individual citizens, aren’t limited in their expression by geographic locations or life span, whereas citizens’ free speech eventually expires when they do, or is restricted to a single place at a time. Corporations are international and potentially everlasting, he said.
“People need to change the Constitution,” Marshall said. “There’s overwhelming public sentiment going against the Supreme Court in this decision. I’ve had constituents come to me and say, ‘This issue is very important and we want to have a debate in public about it.’”
Co-sponsoring the resolution are Mayor Michael Brennan and fellow councilors Anton and Kevin Donoghue. It needs five votes to pass. The nine-member council will consider the resolution at its Wednesday night meeting.
Members of the Maine League of Young Voters and OccupyMaine, groups that have long rallied against corporate personhood, are expected to turn out at the meeting in support of the resolution.
But not everyone on the council plans to vote in favor of it.
“This is not the first time we’ve had political issues put on [the agenda] in the form of a resolution, and it’s totally inappopriate,” Councilor Cheryl Leeman said. “We’re elected to conduct city business, and there are other ways for people to reach out and make their opinions known about federal and state issues. Anytime you deviate from a city-oriented council agenda, of course it’s going to take time away from those issues. Is this going to improve city services? Is this going to affect our city budget? No.”
Donoghue disagreed that taking up political issues at the City Hall level is inappropriate, saying the council does so sparingly. Anton argued that the council “is perfectly able to continue its day-to-day work” while also taking up the resolution.
“It’s about a legitimizing a public sentiment,” Donoghue said. “Naturally the forum at which change can be made is not the City Council. I think we try to use discretion when choosing when it’s appropriate to take up federal issues on the local level. Although federal issues have very real impacts on us at the local level, I realize the council can’t be weighing in on every federal issue. We’re not Congress, and we do have a lot of other things to do. But to me, this is one of the issues that’s timely and significant enough to rise to our agenda.”
PORTLAND, YOU ROCK!
{In his resolution, Marshall argues that the extension of constitutional rights to corporations ultimately results in the infringement of the constitutional rights of individual citizens}
You are darn right it does!
It even takes my money that I have invested in good faith for a profit and uses it to buy political speech that is against my best interest without my approval!
I would like to counter the Right to work Legislation, with the right to Invest!!!!!!
How is it that a Corporation that I am investing in takes my money and uses it to support a candidate that i did not endorse?
And, nobody has even answered the question if they get a tax break for their “personhood” political support.
just like tax money going to unions. why is my money being filtered through unions to help democrats
“It even takes my money that I have invested in good faith for a profit
and uses it to buy political speech that is against my best interest
without my approval!”
Unions do the very same thing and you seem to be for Unions. so…
“This is not the first time we’ve had political issues put on [the agenda] in the form of a resolution, and it’s totally inappopriate,” Councilor Cheryl Leeman said.
On the contrary, Ms. Leeman, It is not only appropriate but it is what is known as leadership. I don’t know what Portland’s motto is but Maine’s is “Dirigo”–I Lead. All the pedestrian matters which the council is expected to attend to will get done. New York City didn’t find it inappropriate, neither did Los Angeles, Portland Oregon, Oakland CA, Albany NY, Boulder CO and Madison WI. Vermont and California have introduced motions in their legislatures to the same effect and Montana has recently renewed it state law banning corporate funding in the election process.
This is not a left,right or republican, democrat issue. It is a common sense issue to return our political system to the people. I would guess that a huge percentage of your constituents want you to take this action Ms. Leeman and it would behoove you to follow their wishes.
Why doesn’t the Portland city council work on something important like world peace??? They think their senators now???
World peace that’s a joke, there will always be someone out there who wants what someone else has, or wants to do something one way that others don’t agree with. If it could happen great, but I don’t see it.
so will this include the lefts latest molestation the one percent crowd also?.
I believe this “corporate personhood” is the same legal concept that allows corporations to be sued in many cases.
As long as you limit the speech/spending of the Sierra Club, AARP, Unions, etc…….
as well, I’m good with that.
That seems to be the general idea here. “The U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 ruled by a 5-4 vote that limiting corporate OR UNION political contributions equates to an infringement of the groups’ First Amendment right to free speech. ” (emphasis added)
The council should definitely take this one up, that “it’s not my job” junk is part of the problem. They all pass the buck to the next level up, and eventually the highest level of elected government passes the buck to the fed or some other business interest. Enough is enough, and we should make that clear at every level of government, starting here.
I’ll believe corporations are “persons” just as soon as one is put in prison.
Corporate personhood is a useful concept that lets corporations sign contracts, sue and be sued and generally act like the entities they are. That said, I’m not wild about legal fictions, so how about this: require the corporation to ‘invest’ its personhood in a single actual person, say its CEO. Then, lawsuits are filed by or against him/her, contracts are signed with him/her and so on. Not only does this apply the limits on individual political spending to the corporation through the CEO, it also makes an actual person civilly and criminally responsible for the corporation’s acts.
As an aside, since I read most comments here as being from progressives, I will point out that any change in corporate personhood would apply to all corporations – banks, but also unions; manufacturers, but also political parties. So be careful what you pray for….
A business can do all that without being a corporation.
That is awsome.
I hope people get copies of this resolution and present it to their own town / city councils to be voted opon.
How about it Bangor?
Any discussion about corporate personhood must begin with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court case from 1886 that industry seized upon to base future arguments for personhood.
In Santa Clara, the Court did not rule on personhood, but instead a court reporter attached an obiter dictum to the decision. The reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company. It is important to remember that corporations are chartered by the individual states, and are a legal construct whose sole purpose is to protect the owners of them (i.e. the shareholders) from liability.
Further, the idea that a corporation is a person is in direct conflict with the 13th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Or more simply, one person cannot own another.
This is a no brainer we should all help and put a stop to this.