Download
1 / 57
570 likes | 575 Vues
www.MoveToAmend.org. We the People vs Corporate Rule: It’s Up to Us! League of Women Voters of Oberlin Area June 1, 2019 Greg Coleridge, Outreach Director greg@movetoamend.org. www.MoveToAmend.org. www.MoveToAmend.org. www.MoveToAmend.org. Mission.
E N D
www.MoveToAmend.org We the People vs Corporate Rule: It’s Up to Us! League of Women Voters of Oberlin Area June 1, 2019 Greg Coleridge, Outreach Director greg@movetoamend.org
www.MoveToAmend.org Mission Move to Amend is a coalition of hundreds of organizations and hundreds of thousands of individuals committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests.
www.MoveToAmend.org Goals • Pass the We the People Amendment (HJR 48) to make clear that artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not constitutionally protected “free speech.“ • Provoke discussion and organizing about how to make real the promise of democracy through Constitutional renewal.
www.MoveToAmend.org Our Principles & Values • Anti-Oppression and Solidarity Organizing • Coalition and Movement Building • Grassroots Organizing • Dedication to Political Education • Political and Economic Independence
www.MoveToAmend.org Coalition Structure • National Board (Leadership Team) • National Staff • Local Affiliates • Amendment Working Groups • Coalition Partners & Independent Supporters
www.MoveToAmend.org We the People Amendment is Essential for All Other Issues! • Corporations have hijacked the US Constitution and working with the Judiciary are able to use it against us • Green New Deal, Medicare for All, For the People Act (HR1, democracy reforms), economic justice, environmental policies, consumer protection, worker protections -- all require addressing corporate constitutional rights • This is a Constitutional/Democracy crisis, not simply a money in politics crisis
www.MoveToAmend.org 2019-2020 is critical for the fight to save our planet –without democratic governance[the legal authority to self-rule] we cannot win. Many members of Congress do not understand the depth of this issue (overturning Citizens United or getting big money out of elections isnot enough)
www.MoveToAmend.org Barriers to voting and political participation 5+ million people are barred from voting. Voter suppression laws in 33 States GerrymanderingVoter purges for arbitrary reasons Lack of representation in all levels of government Women, People of Color, Latinx, LGBTQ, poor peopleElite political donors are almost exclusively white menLaws, regulations and rules protect property/corporate rights at the expense of people, places and the planet Money in politics is a big problem. An undemocratic system is a bigger problem
www.MoveToAmend.org Researchers from Princeton University and Northwestern University have concluded, after extensive analysis of 1,779 policy issues from 1981-2002 , that the U.S. is in fact an oligarchy and not a democracy. Although “Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance,” “majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.” Their study, published in Perspectives on Politics, found that 'When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” US is an Oligarchy, not a Democracy
www.MoveToAmend.org Rights Right - A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something Inalienable/Unalienable right - That which can’t be taken away, denied, repudiated or transferred. Exists by way of birth. Definitions vary based on cultures/countries. Human right - A right intended exclusively for human persons Constitutional right - A prerogative or a duty, a power or a restraint of power, and/or a legal affirmation of an inalienable right established by a sovereign state or nation or union of nations acknowledged and included in a constitution.
www.MoveToAmend.org U.S Constitution and Rights • U.S Constitution - Revolutionary • U.S. Constitution - Limited human “personhood” rights • U.S. Constitution - Affirmed property rights over human rights • Much of US history has been the history of people striving for rights via social/democracy movements not originally affirmed or granted
www.MoveToAmend.org U.S Constitution, We the People & Corporations • Corporate entities not mentioned in U.S Constitution-no legal foundation • Revolution was, in part, a revolution against “crown corporate entities” • Corporations were created/defined by We the People & public officials via charters (licenses) - granted & revoked
www.MoveToAmend.org Control by We the People over Corporations – Charters issued by Legislatures (Ohio, etc.) • Limited duration of charter or certificate of incorporation, • Limitation on amount of land ownership, • Limitation of amount of capitalization, or total investment of owners, • Limitations of charter for a specific purpose (to amend its charter, a new corporation had to be formed), • The state reserved the right to amend the charters or to revoke them, • Corporations could not engage in political activities – nor, often, in charities
www.MoveToAmend.org Control by We the People over Corporations –Charter Revocation by legislatures & courts OHIO SUPREME COURT DECISION State ex rel. Monnett v. Capital City Dairy Co., 62 OS 350 (1900): “The time has not yet arrived when the created is greater than the creator, and it still remains the duty of the courts to perform their office in the enforcement of the laws, no matter how ingenious the pretexts for their violation may be, nor the power of the violators in the commercial world.” Self-governing people define their creations. They don’t negotiate, request or plead.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporations Escaped “Democratic” Control 3 strategies
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporations Escaped “Democratic” Control 3 strategies • Shifted decision making to define corporate entities from the state to federal level - preemption
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporations Escaped “Democratic” Control 3 strategies • Shifted decision making to define corporate entities from the state to federal level - preemption • Shifted decision making to define corporate entities from the legislative to regulatory arena – creation of regulatory agencies
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporations Escaped “Democratic” Control 3 strategies • Shifted decision making to define corporate entities from the state to federal level - preemption • Shifted decision making to define corporate entities from the legislative to regulatory arena – creation of regulatory agencies • Shifted decision making to define corporate entities from the legislative to the judicial arena - i.e. court-granted “constitutional rights”
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Constitutional Rights • Not originally intended • Not inevitable - gravity/tides • Not irreversible • Not created by any passed law or regulation passed by any elected official or by citizen initiative • Conscious/planned/deliberate effort by corporate attorneys and activist judges
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the U.S. Constitution • Corpses have been granted Constitutional Amendment rights • Corpses have used/misused/abused provisions of the original Constitution Corporate Constitutional Rights and Abuses Harm You, Your Family, Your Community, Your Environment, and Your Democracy ** Corporate entities = for profits, not for profits, unions
www.MoveToAmend.org Business Corporations Don’t Need Constitutional Rights · A business corporation is a vehicle to accumulate capital and do business. · State law,“statutory rights,” already protects the legitimate functions of corporations: to act as one entity, to transact business, to own property, to sue and be sued in a court of law, and to enter into contracts. None of these functions require constitutional rights. MTA does not object to any of these.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Constitutional Rights / “Corporate Personhood“ 4 Assumptions • CCRs impact more than simply elections • There is a negative influence of corporations beyond money in elections • Political elections are not the only arena affected by CCRs • Political free speech rights are just one of many threats to We the People’s legal authority to self-governance
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Political “free speech” 1976:Buckley v Valeo Money spent in elections = political free speech 1978: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (first granting of corp political free speech) The Supreme Court reversed a Massachusetts law prohibiting corporations from spending money to influence legislation unrelated to their business. 2010: Citizens United v FEC • Decision was based on neither doctrine of corporate personhood or money as free speech • Decision based on (a) the right of persons to listen to speech, regardless of the source, and (b) the corporation simply being an association of people with collective free speech rights. • Decision allowed direct spending on elections by corporate entities • Impact: Increased the amount of money in elections from corpses, super rich & foreign entities / dark money
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Impact of corporate political “free speech” Increased the amount of $$ in elections from corpses, super rich & foreign entities / dark money
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Impact of corporate political “free speech” The flood of money from corporations (as well as from wealthy individuals) in elections is a major factor in… • What issues are publicly discussed • How issues are discussed • Whose interests are heard • Who gets elected. • Ignored are problems and solutions related to: • low-income, working class, people of color and other historically-oppressed constituencies • our increasing environmental crisis. • our legal/democracy crisis caused by big money in elections and corporate constitutional rights
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Non political “free speech” Florida state law granting political candidates the right to equal space to respond to criticism by a newspaper of their record was overturned based on the paper’s right “not to speak” -- also called “negative free speech (1974 - Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo)
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Non political “free speech” New York state law during the mid 1970’s energy crisis banning all utility corporations from promoting the use of electricity in advertisements was overturned based on its “commercial speech” rights. The state’s obligation to protect the welfare of its residents, expressed by promoting energy conservation, was in direct conflict with the utility corporation’s goal of encouraging greater electricity usage and, thus, increasing its profits. (1980 - Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., v. Public Utilities Comm’n)
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Non political “free speech” Vermont law requiring the labeling of products containing bovine growth hormones (rBST) overturned based on corpses right “not to speak. The legitimate right to know by consumers what’s in their food was preempted by corporate rights. (1996 - International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy)
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Non political “free speech” Supreme Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s claim of religious belief under Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The decision permitted the corporation to deny contraceptive health care coverage to female employees. Though it didn’t directly address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the 1st Amendment. (2014 - Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores)
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Non political “free speech”
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 1st Amendment Non political “free speech” “Commercial,” “negative free speech,” and “religious” rights represent other aspects of the First Amendment that have been used by corporate entities to: √ defy the legitimate rights of people to know factual information; √ the ability to hold corporations publicly accountable; √ the provision of basic health needs of employees; √ and the authority of government to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents;
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 4th Amendment Search & Seizure The 4th Amendment was designed to protect individual right to privacy, including protection against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. 1906 - Hale v Henkel Corporations didn’t have privacy protections prior to this case. Many corporate charters stipulated that books and records of corporations had to be transparent to ensure public accountability.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 4th Amendment Search & Seizure 1978 - Marshall v. Barlow’s Inc. Surprise Inspections of Business Premises Prohibited • When an OSHA inspector tried to do a routine inspection of an electrical and plumbing installation business, the company’s president refused, protesting that the inspector lacked a warrant. • Section 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) did not require a search warrant for inspections of safety hazards and violations of OSHA regulations, which led the Secretary of Labor to seek an order to compel compliance • The Supreme Court ruled that OSHA’s Section 8(a) was unconstitutional because it authorized inspections without a warrant.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 4th Amendment Search & Seizure In his dissent in Hale v Henkel, Justice Harlan (born today, June 1, in 1833) stated: “...the power of the government, by its representatives, to look into the books, records and papers of a corporation of its own creation, to ascertain whether that corporation has obeyed or is defying the law, will be greatly curtailed, if not destroyed.”
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 4th Amendment Search & Seizure
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 4th Amendment Meanwhile, our Search & Seizure rights diminsh by the day
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 5th Amendment Takings Among its many provisions, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” 1922 - Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 State Statute to Prevent Sinking from Underground Mining Struck Down The Supreme Court overturned a Pennsylvania law preventing coal mining below homes that would cause sinking. The decision invalidated the state’s “police power” to protect public health, safety and welfare. Note: communities and states often use the police power to legislate protections for public health, safety, and morality.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 5th Amendment Takings Any democratic decision to ban oil and gas development to save what’s left of our climate may constitute a taking, with oil and gas corporations demanding compensation for current and future profits lost. This could cost trillions of dollars. Corporate rights would preempt the rights of human beings to protect the planet’s climate. Legally mandated compensation of lost, present and future corporate profits deters the passage of democratically enacted regulatory laws protecting public health, safety and welfare.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 14th Amendment Equal protection and due process The fiction that corporations have constitutional rights arose out of a court reporter’s false, unofficial comment that the Supreme Court had given corporations the same 14th amendment rights as natural persons in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). (Comments have no legal validity.) The Court’s decision made no such ruling. In fact, the Court explicitly ruled that it would not decide the constitutional question because the case could be (and was) decided on other grounds. Santa Clara became a “precedent” or cover for MInnesota & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Beckwith (129 U.S. 26, 1889) and all other subsequent Supreme Court decisions explicitly concluding that corporations possessed equal protection and/or due process constitutional rights -- rights which were originally intended for freed slaves.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 14th Amendment
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 14th Amendment Equal protection and due process 1933 -Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee The people of Florida passed a law that levied higher taxes on chain stores than on locally-owned stores. The Supreme Court overturned the law citing the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking/Abuse of the Commerce Clause Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." 1967 - Short v. Ness Produce Co. An Oregon law required meat produced from out of the country to have a label in the interests of protecting the health of its residents. The Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds. 1982 - Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas Nebraska passed a stringent law on the sale and transfer of its ground water outside of the state. The Supreme Court ruled that the water was an article of commerce and, therefore, the law was invalid under the Commerce Clause.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking/Abuse of the Commerce Clause 1990 - National Solid Wastes Management Assn. v. Alabama Dept of Envir., In an effort to avoid becoming the waste dump of the nation, Alabama passed a law banning out-of state hazardous waste unless certain requirements were met. A federal court decided that the law was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Hazardous waste was “commerce.” The Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, which meant the lower court decision in support of corporate interests stood.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking/Abuse of the Contract Clause “No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” States are not to interfere with private contracts -- originally between individuals or between the state and individuals. 1819 - Dartmouth College v. Woodward The decision established that a corporation was a party in a private contract rather than a creation of public law. Even though the state originally possessed supreme or ultimate power (i.e. “sovereign” power) over a corporation when it issued a charter, the states no longer possessed ultimate sovereignty over their corporation. 1905 - Lochner v. New York The Court overturned a maximum 60-hour work week law for employees of the state’s dangerous bakery industry, citing interference with the due process freedom of contract right of employers and employees to set their own contract terms. The decision sparked similar decisions which resulted together in the invalidation of several hundred federal and state corporate-related laws and regulations protecting workers (including children), consumers and communities.
www.MoveToAmend.org Corporate Hijacking of the 14th Amendment Equal protection and due process
