You are correct that individuals will still maintain their rights, but that would not prevent government from doing any of the things I've listed. The corporation - a separate legal entity from its owners - will not share the protection of the owners' constitutional rights. If it did, that would completely defeat the purpose of such personhood amendments, which its supporters explicitly state is to do exactly what I've said.

@St. Swithin -

"I am not sure your logic holds here. Even if corporations lost these rights, the individual people in these organizations would still have their rights.""

Mr. Kamenick acknowledge such in his blog entry. Perhaps it's your reading comprehension, extreme partisan bias, and hatred of capitalism that is illogical here!

I agree with you that corporate cronyism and regulatory capture are serious problems in America today. But we should not be willing to throw our constitutional rights down the gutter in order to address them. Your "average person" can have just as much power of speech as a rich person, or a corporation (whether a publicly-traded corporation with hundreds of thousands of shareholders or a 2-member LLC) by pooling resources with likeminded individuals, creating a non-profit CORPORATION, and buying ad time.

If you want the disparate wealth distribution in this country to make it even harder to have the voices of average people heard, take away corporate rights. Strip groups like the NRA, Sierra Club, NARAL, Americans United for Life, unions, and chambers of commerce of the right to speak and see how much more control rich individuals will have.

You want a better solution? Businesses only go begging for favors from government because government has thrust itself into every single facet of our lives. When this country was founded, government - especially the federal government - was a tiny fraction of the size it is now. Government could do very little to help - or hurt - businesses, so put a lot less effort into supporting politicians.

How about instead of taking away our rights to save government, we take away government power to save ourselves?

@Tom Kamenick It was reported a couple of weeks ago that Barclays, an English bank, has contributed 1 million dollars to the Romney campaign. This was revealed only because the bank is being investigated over the Libor scandal. Do we really want corrupt foreign banks directly involving themselves in our presidential politics? Are there other foreign interests throwing their own money into the circus for their own benefit? We are not allowed to know. We have lost our way.

@Michael -

It's not destructive at all. Here you go again - blaming the drug dealer (corporate money) instead of holding the drug user accountable (corrupt politicians). The money is only bad if it's used to unduly influence and gain favoritism from or change a candidate once they're in elected office. So long as we're watching for crap like Solyndra going down, wherein Obama contributors/bundlers received a check for $.5B from the taxpayers after a few visits to the WH even though Obama's own DOE stated that the company wasn't "ready for prime time," and hold those politicians accountable for their corrupt acts, then it isn't an issue.

Their rights shouldn't be stifled merely because the money can be used to corrupt! Instead, hold the corrupted accountable!!!

You believe that big money, irregardless of the intention behind it, automatically corrupts at no fault of the corrupted. That's insane! Many big money donors give for the same reason that us little guys give - because they believe in the candidate they're backing - not because they want to unduly influence or change/control the candidate.

We already went through his example before, but you just aren't getting it! If Hoffa give $1,000 to a campaign, that contribution represents 2.4% of Hoffa's net annual take home. If David Koch gives $100M, that contribution represents .4% of his estimated net worth. Honestly, between the two, who does it appear is trying to buy influence here?

@Hoffa The American people already have a very low regard for Washington. This is not helping- big, secret money going to whichever candidate suits a given purpose. Read "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President. by Ron Suskind. I am convinced that if the American people read it they would assault Washington with pitchforks and torches. Believe me, Washington is bad enough without the addition of all of this corporate money.

@Michael -

I'm sure it probably isn't much different than Jack Abramoff's book. Again, it's not the attempted influencers that should be held accountable - it's the corrupt politicians.

Your argument that big money needs to be eliminated from the game assumes that everyone is corrupted by big money. That's a very pessimistic view to take, isn't it?

@Hoffa Credibility is the issue here. In that entire book the only two people who stand out upstanding is Sheila Behr{FDIC} and Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman. There are good people in that town, but they are very few and far between. Money corrupts, but so does power.

So are you ok with government having the power to seize corporate assets anytime it likes? With government having the power to control or even shut down newspapers, television stations, and radio stations?

We can agree that corporate influence on politics is a serious problem for this country, but letting government control who can and cannot speak on politicial issues is a far more dangerous problem.

Its like anything else, simply repealing something you don't like without a well thought out replacement will yield bad results. It happened in Russia with the fall of communism, it would happen in the US with only a repeal of the affordable care act without not a new, stringent plan that allows real free markets to emerge in healthcare(read: far less consolidation and liability dodging), and it would happen here, if you simply remove corporate rights without an adequate set of laws to cover corporations.

A lot of the "supporting" reasons to protect these "corporate rights" are a result of the system we've had for many years (read: the reason people form corporations in the first place). I'm not a fan of corporations being covered in the exact same manner that people are in the constitution, simply put, they're not people and need their own set of regulations. Simple put, corporations are largely fronts for people looking to shield themselves from personal/financial liability while conducting business and attempting to generate revenue.

That said, introducing a bill at the same time that would protect corporations from things like unreasonable search, shutdown etc, would be a reasonable step to take. To be honest though, the government, at all levels, currently has ways of shutting things down already (FCC oversight, health code, selective enforcement of gambiling/medical marijuana laws, etc), and these are under political control.

@Bren - this constitutional amendment would go far beyond simply reversing Citizens United. Reversing CU would be relatively simple - a constitutional amendment stating that corporations have no constitutional right to engage in political speech. I would disagree with that, but it would be a far, far better approach than stripping corporations of ALL constitutional rights - for all of the reasons I set forth above.

@Greg - Your approach, too, is better than what's being proposed, but it still creates vulnerabilities for corporations, because statutory privileges are weaker than constitutional rights. As you allude, political control can be fickle - I'd rather have the constitutional rights in place than leave it up to a simple majority of politicians to roll back those protections in "special" cases. I could especially see the danger of ex post facto laws aimed at unpopular corporations (seizure of "undue" profits?).

Constitutional rights are ok, but are there specific rights spelled out for corporations in the constitution? Or did activist judges add that interpretation later? I don't recall.

If its the latter, then an ammendment would be ok with me. I don't think they should be grouped in under individual rights, because as noted above, corporations tend to serve as a liability dodge for people in their current form.

@Bren -

"Mr. Kamenick, are you suggesting that a corporate board or billionaire should have the right to influence elections, which ordinary citizens do not?"

How exactly can a billionaire influence an election in a way ordinary citizens do not? Seeing as how you apparently classify the terms ordinary and extraordinary by the size of one's wallet, the extraordinary guys, or the wealthy, are few in comparison to the ordinary, the middle class and poor. The only power that counts in elections is the power to vote. And last Hoffa checked, it's one vote per person per race on the ballot. Thus, the ordinary citizens, as Bren calls them, will always have more power than the extraordinary wealthy.

You're boo-hooing over nothing Bren!

And how can you support Obama if you believe what you are saying? For the last 1.5 years, you've been bellyaching about Walker being a Koch/ALEC puppet. And yet, not a single check cut from the state treasury has went to either the Kochs or ALEC that you've been able to prove. Obama contributors/bundlers visit the WH a few times after their company, Solyndra, was deemed "not ready for prime time" by Obama's own DOE, and yet still manages to walk away with a $.5B check from the US Treasury.

If you truly believe in the crap your espouse, then it's Obama that needs to go Bren! He has proof positive shown to be corrupted by outside monetary influence! How can you ignore these facts?

Excellent point! The lefty/marxist types only agree with this assessment when unions buy free speech.

Certainly you have the right to donate to Citizens United. Can you spend millions of dollars on one election like Abelson, the Koch brothers, Hendricks, et al? Top of mind awareness is key to influencing consumers and a million dollars buys a lot of local air time.

And yes, one can absolutely even out the playing field by placing a cap on contributions without abandoning the right to free speech. In fact, it ensures that everyone has a right to speak and is heard. Your ideas smack of the type of propaganda that has led nations down the path to totalitarianism, using fear to take away the very freedoms supposedly under threat by the "other side."

I also question remarks about "limiting the power of government." Since We the People are government, are you suggesting that we should have a limited role in self-governance? Who should then assume that responsibility? Multinational corporations? Is this patriotic?

@Bren - The only thing I want to respond to is to correct your misstatement. We already have caps on contributions that have been upheld as constitutional. Citizens United had absolutely no effect on contribution caps. All CU deals with is the ability to engage in independent political speech. The law struck down in CU wasn't a contribution cap, it was a flat-out BAN on political speech.

I made no misstatement. There are no caps on donations to Super PACs. As I wrote earlier, CU opened the door to unfettered financial influence in elections through donations to special interest Super PACs. Tipping the scales further in support of special interest agenda than what is always best for We the People.

So if, say, the American Red Cross engaged in political speech on some public policy issue, nobody would be able to donate more than a few thousand dollars to the ARC each year? I have a major problem with the government telling me - a private individual - how much I can and can't donate to another private entity.

@Bren -

So, essentially you're arguing because the electorate is dumb and easily influenced by advertising, we need to strip certain people of their rights to equalize the playing field?

Again, why do you have such a low opinion of your fellow Americans that you feel that they need constant babying from their government so that the others won't be able to exploit their supposed stupidity?

Your stance is really quite insulting to the masses!

"In fact, it ensures that everyone has a right to speak and is heard."

I wasn't aware that there were laws currently in place that deny certain people the right to speak or be heard. Could you please cite to such law and quote the exact text that accomplishes such a prohibition.

"... are you suggesting that we should have a limited role in self-governance?"

I don't see where Mr. Kamenick is suggesting that at all Bren. You're really spinning and reaching now!

Did you mean to say that not all corporations are representative organizations? Unions, churches, public interest groups (like Sierra Club) certainly are.

An officer of a corporation - even a for-profit corporation - actually is under an obligation to represent the interests of the owners (members if its an LLC) of the company. And the opinions of those owners/members do matter - an officer who acts against the will of the owners/members can be fired.

Tom,
You avoid my point. I work for a big corporation. My work contributes to the profits of the corporation. Yet I have no say in how the CEO or the board contribute to political parties or lobby Congress. Currently I may not even be aware such donations are being made, thanks to Citizens United. How is this representative democracy? If I join the NRA I know what I am supporting. I can withdraw my support at any time. It is not that easy with my employer.

Swithin your work does not contribute to the profits of the corporation, your work is an expense to the corporation and takes away from the profits of the corporation. You are overhead. CEO's speak for the owners, not the employees.

@St.Swithin - I don't think that the private contractual relationship between you and your employer has anything to do with representative democracy. You are free to exercise your constitutional right of free association to refuse to work for any employer who either (a) spends corporate money on political causes you disagree with; (b) spends corporate money on political causes at all; or (c) refuses to tell its employees whether it spends corporate money on political causes. You could even associate with other workers who agree with you and threaten to strike if the company doesn't disclose that.

@H.E. - The whole point of having workers for a for-profit company is that each worker generates more value to the company than she costs in salary, taxes, benefits, etc. I don't think that diminishes your point that a CEO speaks for, and represents, the shareholders and not the employees, but make sure you understand the role of employees.

@St. Swithin -

"The president of a corporation is under no obligation to represent the members of his company, but he is allowed to wield all the profits from the work of those members to influence public policy."

Last Hoffa checked, usually it was the owners that are entitled to "wield all the profits," and not the president of a corporation. The owners are either represented directly or through a board of directors.

The owners of a company are paying voluntary employees for their labor, not for their political opinions. If the employee doesn't like the political stance of company, no one is forcing the employee to work for the company, are they?

That is the IRS's current position, yes - that if a preacher endorses candidates, or the church runs some pro-candidate event, they can be stripped of their tax-exempt status. There is no constitutional requirement that churches be tax-exempt.

I used to be all for disclosures because I thought people shouldn't have the right to speak anonymously. Over the past few years I'm not so sure anymore. Anonymous speech - especially anonymous POLITICAL speech - is more important than I used to think it was. Those who are critical of government have a very strong interest in avoiding governmental retribution. King George probably would have loved to find out who was writing Common Sense (Thomas Paine used a pseudonym). The Federalist Papers were written under the nom de plume "Publius."

There are surely competing interests at play. I'm not trying to claim here that corporate money and regulatory capture aren't problems, just that this "solution" creates more problems than it solves

Thanks for the confirmation. I didn't want to speak out of ignorance and could not remember specifics. I can say I didn't know there was no consititutional requirement churches be tax exempt. Do you think the reason they are is becasue of the fire storm it would cause to try to collect taxes from churches? Oh, yeah - it would be a huge huge deal.

I can honeslty see your point. There is a degree of anonymity that is helpful in Free Speach. I mean, FreeThought Troy is not my real name. My concern is the PAC and SuperPAC monies are too influential and they aren't held accountable for their content.

David Frum has some interesting ideas about unlimited contributions to the parties compared to the individuals. He makes very compelling arguments. I am curious to your position?

To some degree they are held responsible. They can still be sued for defamation and libel (although courts have made that very hard when a plaintiff is a public figure - specifically for fear of chilling political speech).

I tried to look up David Frum's views, but google flooded me with OTHER people's opinions of him. Do you have a link I could review? My first reaction to that idea is it would put individual politicians even more under the control of the party machines than they currently are, which would overall be a bad thing.

One of the best things about a system that allows both direct donations and independent expenditures is that a candidate doesn't HAVE to be independently wealthy to succeed. If the only person who can spend money on a candidate's campaign is the candidate himself, being rich "enough" is a prerequisite to running for office. In the current system, somebody with a lot less money but the ability to convince others he has the right ideas can do well.

Ahh - I first heard the argument when he was on a panel for Real Time with Bill Mahar. His position may be from the think tank he was working with at the time, American Enterprise Institute, but I haven't found the position paper on thier website.

Your concern is well founded. The original shift from party to individual was to address the party becoming "King Makers" and the party chair -elected not by the people, but the party, beginning to wield more power than the president. If memory serves, this shift happened around the Johnson time? Not quire sure of that, either. Back me up, but I believe government got a little bloated during and after Johnson? Not sure of the history on that belief, either.

Your counter points happen to be mine as well. There has to be a middle ground solution to the issue. I was interested in Fram's as he is a conservative voice (he worked for George W. Bush) and does make intellegent observations all while listening and acknowledging concerns of others.

I was able to dig a little deeper and discoverd the source was a book: Better Parties, Better Government: A Realistic Program for Campaign Finance Reform by Peter J. Wallison and Joel M. Gora. You can find Frum's synopsis of the book on: http://www.frumforum.com/better-parties-better-government/

Johnson instituted the "Great Society" - a slew of federal government programs aimed at eliminating poverty and eradicating racial injustice. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, new and increased welfare programs, federal education money, environment, fine arts, transportation, etc. That was a noticeable increase in the size and scope of federal government, just as Roosevelt's "New Deal" (social security, interstate highways and other major public works, drastically increased federal government regulation of industry and labor laws, etc.) was.

@FreeThought Troy -

What does it matter where the money is coming from? So long as a candidate sticks to doing what they campaigned on doing and there isn't any cronyism going on, wherein would lie the issue exactly?

Why wouldn't I? I am a Progressive Atheist. I have the same set of standards for everyone.

I'm not a Tea Pary Conservative that picks and chooses thier standards depending on who is making the argument.

You Commie POS .... You believe in using Force to make people act a certain way, the groups rights are greater than the individual in your little commie mind. The TEA PARTY believes the Individuals rights are more important than the group .. so spew your BS on thr Huffpo

Ah what I would give for moderator powers.

Brings the lulz

So, TeaParty conservatives aren't consistent in their ideology but progressive atheists are?

You just got done ranting about how you wished the conversation on these boards were more civil and productive and then make such a comment as that - REALLY?!?!

@Johnny- I am a Progressive Atheist. I am not a Communist, or a POS. That is your opinion - TO WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED. But I am entitled to mine. I tend to push back when the President's former pastor and a Civil Rights leader is brought into an otherwise civil conversation when not necessary. Kind of like lashing out at me for haveing a Progressive opinion- with the exeption I don't defult to vulgarity.

@Steve - Don't know what a lutz is

@Tom - yeah, this is off topic. Sorry about that. These boards tend to get that way once name calling happens

@Hoffa- ahhh Hoffa. Yes. I am saying Progressive Atheists have a consistant standard they hold everyone to. If the standard changes, it is only because evidence has proven us wrong. We don't have a problem admitting we are wrong (unlike Tea Party Conservatives - yes I am saying they lack the moral fiber to admit they are wrong when they obviously are). When evidence proves a change is needed, we change for everyone including ourselves.

Yes. I am saying Tea Party Conservatives don't hold themselves to the same standards. They believe in individual freedom, yet somehow want the government involved the minute another doesn't agree with them.

See? This is a rant, Hoffa. The many paragraphed response is a rant. I one sentence statement is just that- a statement. Then I went into a rational and mature discussion. The online intimidation that was just attempted with me sent me into this rant.

@FreeThought Troy -

And here's what progressive atheism gets us - Kardashian breast implants over observance of the 9/11 moment of silence.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/nbc-shamed-in-social-media-for-failing-to-cover-9-11-moments-of-silence.html

You sure you picked the right team to back?

Are you refering to Kim Kardashian? She's Christian? And what does breast implants have to do with 9/11 rememberances? And since when did 9/11 become a religious only day of mourning? What? Athiests can't mourn?

Besides, the terrorists of 9/11 were religious zealouts. So yeah, my Atheist backs the right team.

Science flies people to explore space.
Religion flies them into buildings.

Government can seize property under eminent domain, yes, but (a) only for "public use" and (b) only for "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment to the constitution. Take away corporate constitutional rights and any level of government will be able to seize corporate property for any reason without compensation.

I have no problem with newspapers trying to please their advertisers. Those are two private entities (a third, with you buying the paper) entering a wholly-voluntary private transaction on their own terms. Government's compulsory power operates in a much higher sphere.

Unions are a whole other subject (one I've already blogged on), but even under Act 10, unions still have the right to lobby the government and engage in political speech via media presence as much as any other special interest. All that was taken away from (some of) them was the privilege to force government to sit down with them and make demands that could be backed up by binding arbitration.

@Dave Koven -

"Newspapers are already censored, but it is by their advertisers."

Where is it written that newspapers must operate at a profit? Or that they must appease certain advertisers?

"Search and seizure...be honest, and you have nothing to fear."

You trust your government way too much and do not value your privacy enough. Ever seen those shows where a dirty or paid off cop plants evidence to frame an innocent person?

In "eminent domain," the government has to fairly compensate you for that which they are taking from you. What's scary about eminent domain is that fairly recent cases have made it so that the government can eminent domain property to serve a private, as opposed to a public function. Hoffa doesn't like this standard and believes a constitutional amendment against such power should be effectuated immediately, as it allows government to pick and choose private winners.

Americans have let themselves down by failing to do anything about corrupt politicians, such as President Obama.

@Tom -

"Government can seize property under eminent domain, yes, but (a) only for "public use" and (b) only for "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment to the constitution."

Actually, recent cases have made it so that the government can ED property for private use - check it out.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

Personally, Hoffa thinks that the S Court got this one WRONG!!!

What a great issue! I honeslty don't know. There are pitfalls to all of it. I know originally, for a network to get a broadcasting licence, they needed to air the nightly news free of charge to keep it objective. The news would be handled by the network so government can't get involved. It's not like the network is hurting for money - esp. with all the potitial ads hitting the airwaves (SuperPAC ads don't get the political discount).

Print media is a whole different story. That is just a mess of a situation. The gov. CAN NOT under any circumstance get involved. Corp. influence still there. The internet is killing print media anyway. Any nut case with WiFi can publish an article.

Your guess is as good as mine at this point. I would say some sort of non proft may help... but I fear that is a pipe dream with it's own pitfalls as well.

I got this from Tom Kamenick:

Hi Jim Crist,
"The first amendment protects speech, the press and religion." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, unless that religion is corporate organized, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless people want to incorporate a church; or abridging the freedom of speech unless a corporation is speaking, or of the press unless a corporation is trying to exercise that right. Yep, that's exactly what the founders wrote! I'm curious as to why you think "corporate billionaires" control all of government, yet you trust government not to engage in tyranny at the same time?"

The word "corporate" is not in the first amendment. Why are you saying it is?? Here's the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If we want our representatives to represent us, they need to get their campaign money from us, their constituents. Right now more than 50% of the Super Pac money has come from just 46 people. If we can wrest control of the government away from the corporations, I would definately trust my elected officials over a bunch of multi-national corporations.

(continued) Since we need to protect free speech, then it only makes sense to publicly finance all campaigns. Let third parties spend as much as they want on issues ads, but limit their messages to only the issues and subject to truth in advertising. I would also like to see more libel and slander suits taken up to hold the advertiser accountable. In the Citizen United ruling, the Supreme Court took the easy way out. Congress would have to come up with something, which would probably be against their current self interest, that would place new limits or means of campaign financing; winding up in front of the Supreme Court again. I don't think there is any reason to turn over the CU with an amendment, just legislate and authorize government campaign financing.

@Lyle -

So, how would a candidate qualify for government campaign financing exactly?

@Lyle- that is a thoroughly cogent response. Though I personally have gone off the rails once or twice in this string, by and large it has been really good and positive.

I do agree with you. There has always been lies in politics- look at political humor. That's the stereotype, right? Thus said, it is never a good thing and it has seemed to get out of control. We do need campaign finance reform. I do worry about it's comletion. There is a whole lot of money involved and Democrats are just as suseptable to money as Republicans. Would the President have spoke out against CU in the State of the Union address if his SuperPAC were making the same money as Mitt Romney's? I adore the President, but I must admit I highly highly doubt he would have.

We need serious people to make some serious descisions. They will be tough. They will not be easy. I fear it will take some informed voters to back with votes more than money to get this.

Idealistic, I know, but what else can we do?

Publically financed elections is the way to go. A good model is called "Clean Elections"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Elections

Another good approach is Larry Lessig's "Democracy Voucher"

http://wiki.lessig.org/The28th

Hi Rich, I see you recognize the problems corporate cronyism and regulatory capture create. That's good! But do you see how stripping corporations of constitutional rights (SCOTUS has recognized such rights for over 200 years) is an overreaction that would create the potential for massive governmental tyranny?

Tom, For an attorney, you seem to know very little about constitutional law. The word 'corporation' (in any form) is NOT in the constitution. And corporations didn't have any rights (only privileges) prior to Southern Railroad v Santa Clara County in 1886. And even then, it was snuck into the headnotes a year after the case by a court reporter / railroad man, when the Chief Justice was on his death bed. So, corporations have only had rights for 125 years.

What we have now is bad government controlled by corporations. We need to return to the framer's intent, where our elected officials are acting in the best interests of their constituent's needs. And not just the richest 1%.

@Jim Crist 'Evil prospers when good men do nothing." William Shakespeare

Thank you for your comments, Jeff. I want to point out that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that corporations possess constitutional rights for over 200 years. You may disagree with that conclusion, but SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation.

Regardless of if you believe corporations don't have constitutional rights or you think they do have them but they should be stripped of them, either construction leads to all the possibilities I listed. Do you believe government should be able to censor and control the speech of corporations? Do you believe government should be able to seize corporate property at will? Do you believe that if a corporation is sued in court, they should not be provided due process of law?

Foreign nationals have nearly all of the constitutional rights that U.S. citizens do while they are on U.S. soil. The only right I can think of off the top of my head that they do not have is the right to vote (and related activities like signing a recall or referendum petition).

You haven't answered my question of whether you think government ought to have that power. Business corporations are the vilified political bogeymen for those on the left - broadly speaking. Union corporations are the vilified political bogeymen for those on the right - also broadly speaking. All kinds of nonprofit corporations take political stances unpopular with governing parties. News corporations are often critical of governing politicians.

That's a recipe for disaster if we take away corporate rights and give government - at all levels - the power to do just about anything to a corporation.

Super PAC's cannot donate directly to candidates in federal elections and most state (including Wisconsin) elections. Super PAC money goes to (a) production teams who create ads; and (b) media outlets who run them.

But you're on to something wondering what the return is that justifies spending so much by the politician him or herself. Do some reading on public choice theory, you'll probably find a lot to learn there.

If that's the way you view government, why have constitutional rights at all? We can strike the whole bill of rights and the concept of enumerated powers if all you want to have is unfettered representative majoritarian rule. The constitution operates as a restraint on simple majority rule by limiting the actions the government can legitimately take - and creating courts to interpret those limitations.

From the abstract - "Much of the criticism of Citizens United stems from the claim that the Constitution does not protect corporations because they are not “real” people. While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant because corporations are formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights. When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights. It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations. In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups.

Well that explains your twisted logic. You get your 'facts' (a.k.a lies) from the Cato Institute which is controlled by the Koch Brothers.

Tom, we've addressed your 7 points and this abstract from Shapiro. You are welcome to make comments.

http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2012/09/18/taking-on-amendment-critics-part-xii-tom-kamenick/

Regarding Section 3, other commentors (whom I linked to above) have already addressed that (and far more ably than I), but that section does not save, say, the New York Times or any other news corporation from censorship. Yes, it says the freedom of the press shall still be protected, but corporations will no longer have freedom of the press - it will operate only to protect the freedom of the press for individuals. Which is exactly what MTA admits they want.

I am disturbed by the misunderstanding of the rights verse the privileges for corporations. In essence privileges and rights are used interchangeably. The way that some are differentiating between rights and privileges is meaningless. Rights do not only apply to constitutionally granted rights, but rights are protections based in a social contract to protect the affected parties. Privileges allow for specific actions beyond protections. The privilege argument is sound to the extent that governments can only grant statutory privileges/rights and they differ from state to state. One type of business corporation is entirely legal in one jurisdiction and illegal in another. This has an impact of variance on how and when the corporate entity can pursue their interests. All states allow for the creation of the corporate entity and the privileges and rights are clearly spelled out for that jurisdiction.

Freedom of speech and free association for corporations are statutorily granted. The statutory privilege granted to the corporation is not for the corporation's interest but for the interest of the natural citizens making up the corporation. Corporations are allowed to spend their monies in any way they can legally spend it by law. To promote certain political positions are protected based on the corporation pursuing its own self interest. Hence, lobbying is allowed as well as political contributions. Amendments aren't needed, just statutory reform.