> "We’re stamping messages such as “Corporations Are Not People — Amend the Constitution” on dollar bills in order to tap into the viral circulation of money and create a cumulative mass visual demonstration of support for a constitutional amendment that declares: Money is not speech; corporations are not people."
After opening Pandora's Box, would lawmakers and lobbyists be able to limit themselves to only one Constitutional amendment? Is it possible to achieve the same objectives (providing new guidance to the courts on campaign finance) without amending the Constitution?
What do you mean by "opening Pandora's Box"? This isn't calling for a Constitutional Convention, so it's not like there could be an open day for lawmakers and lobbyists.
Your objection could be applied to any amendment. There have been 10 in the last century, without the calamity that
concerns you. Why would a new one be any different?
The courts take guidance through the law, but only if the law is in accord with the Constitution. The issue is that the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on political speech by corporations, which include limits on spending, is in violation of the constitutional right of free speech. Hence it is not possible for the legislature or any citizen referendum other than an amendment to change that.
Thanks for the explanation. It's been a while since the last amendment. If a single, sensible amendment can make it through the current legislative process without unwelcome side effects, it would be a welcome exception to the last few years of gridlock and horse trading.
3 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 12.1 ms ] thread> "We’re stamping messages such as “Corporations Are Not People — Amend the Constitution” on dollar bills in order to tap into the viral circulation of money and create a cumulative mass visual demonstration of support for a constitutional amendment that declares: Money is not speech; corporations are not people."
After opening Pandora's Box, would lawmakers and lobbyists be able to limit themselves to only one Constitutional amendment? Is it possible to achieve the same objectives (providing new guidance to the courts on campaign finance) without amending the Constitution?
Your objection could be applied to any amendment. There have been 10 in the last century, without the calamity that concerns you. Why would a new one be any different?
The courts take guidance through the law, but only if the law is in accord with the Constitution. The issue is that the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on political speech by corporations, which include limits on spending, is in violation of the constitutional right of free speech. Hence it is not possible for the legislature or any citizen referendum other than an amendment to change that.