I’d have to respectfully disagree with your declarative statement. There has been significant grassroots support for repealing or ending corporate personhood. Various advocacy groups and movements have emerged, focusing on this issue:
Move to Amend: One of the most prominent grassroots organizations, it has been actively campaigning since the Citizens United decision in 2010, advocating for a constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations are not people and money is not speech.
Public Citizen: Involved in numerous advocacy efforts, they support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, highlighting widespread public support through petitions and local resolutions across the U.S.
Represent.Us: Engages in grassroots campaigns for broader anti-corruption and pro-democracy reforms, including counteracting the effects of Citizens United on corporate personhood at local and state levels.
Free Speech For People: Promotes the “People’s Rights Amendment” aimed at addressing corporate personhood and money in politics.
Common Cause: Advocates for campaign finance reform, supporting efforts to amend the Constitution to reverse Citizens United.
Reclaim Democracy!: Focuses on democracy issues, advocating for ending corporate personhood to restore power to individual citizens.
Alliance for Democracy: Has been part of the movement against corporate personhood since before Citizens United, with continued efforts post-ruling.
Bolder Advocacy: Part of the Alliance for Justice, they provide resources and support for grassroots advocacy, including efforts to combat corporate personhood.
Democracy Matters: A student-led organization with campaigns aimed at reducing corporate influence in politics, including protests against Citizens United.
United for the People: While not strictly grassroots, this coalition includes many grassroots organizations working towards a constitutional amendment in response to Citizens United.
This list demonstrates a robust and active grassroots movement dedicated to addressing the implications of corporate personhood and the Citizens United decision.
I also understand your second point from a logistical standpoint, so thanks for pointing that out. I will explore the possibility of uniting the different grassroots organizations I’ve listed, along with WolfPAC (and anyone else I can find), to work on this issue, since it seems your focus is set without room for expansion in this direction. I do like your website though, so thanks for sharing your link to that. You’ve been at it for many more years than me, and the work on your specific focus is taking things in a good direction. I’m new to all of this, with the advent of Policies for the People inspiring me to become involved and understand the conflict between what is practical and one’s own idealism. I’ll take this as a learning opportunity.
I don’t see in these comments that “afraid” was used. Realizing Mark’s a co-founder in Convention of States efforts probably means he knows a lot more on the subject than I do. Because I don’t trust the current politicians making the laws, doesn’t make my argument wrong. I liked Rick’s comments above. Hinde sight 20/20, a Convention of States is maybe less needed today then it was a few months ago. Maybe Mark’s above comment was that our opinion hurts his pride or efforts?
No hurt feelings here. If you read back you’ll see many say they “fear” what they call a runaway convention. And I’m weary of people who operate from fear. Been listening to that for almost 15 years in politics as a reason to sit back as our country slides into the abyss.
As far as whether it’s needed now (as opposed to a few months ago - I assume you’re referring to the outlook post election) I think NOW more than ever. I believe we are going to see historic change for the better… most from the executive branch. Most of it will also be easily reversible by the next left-wing administration. If we want to lock in some of the gains, the best way to do it is by calling a convention of the States and passing, and then ratifying amendments to do so.
When you have momentum, that’s the time to accelerate, not to sit back. Just my two cents anyway.
While I am in my 80s I fully empathize with your statements. Not all 80 somethings are of the same mental and physical state; but, then, neither are all 40 somethings sober, intelligent and America-loving people.
I would gladly support changes that would require that no one serve in government beyond a period of 15 years in a lifetime except in civil service, non-management positions nor beyond the age of 75. I would also like to see those who are young and immature prevented from serving. I have AOC in mind but there have been others. Biden was elected to the US Senate when he was 30. So, I would support - and ask you to do the same - changes that would required a minimum age of 40 to serve in government in elective or appointive office.
In some manner, Citizens United was a balancing of labor union participation of funding politicians chosen by leadership of the unions using the force of mandated union labor. Not exactly representing the broad view of the people. What you are afraid of is big government and the huge power it has to influence our everyday lives at a microscopic level. If government was of the size envisioned by our Founders and Congress had to live by the original Constitution, not the mega Constitution of today, there would be no real power hence no great need of funding for elections. The enormous cost of elections is a measure of how much power the federal government has. Power is the disease of big government and much of he perceived problems are just symptoms of the disease and would just go away if that power was taken away.
I don’t think rescinding the 17th amendment is politically possible. What might work is the states having the say so on federal judges in their area. In adition limiting the power, size and scope of the federal government would go a long way to restoring federalism along with the states having control of the vast federal lands with in their boundries
With all do respect Dr. Brown you’re sorely mistaken. An Article V Convention of States is NOT a Constitutional Convention. It’s a Convention of States to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and is limited in scope and authority. Please watch this video that explains further The Article V Process Explained - COSAction
Thank you for engaging with this policy proposal and providing your constructive feedback. Some key takeaways regarding State Employment for Federal Legislators: While the idea of making federal legislators state employees presents interesting possibilities for accountability, there are significant legal and constitutional challenges to go by that approach. Instead, one has focused on strengthening the federal framework to ensure that state-like accountability can be achieved without altering the fundamental structure of federal employment.
The proposal now includes:
Revised Lobbying and Employment Laws: One has expanded this section to explicitly address the post-tenure influence of corporations on legislators. This includes extended cooling-off periods and non-compete clauses, directly tackling the issue of corporations offering positions or benefits like stock options to former legislators, which you rightly pointed out as a significant corruption avenue.
Federal Commission for Ethical Oversight: In response to the need for robust monitoring and enforcement, one has proposed the creation of an Ethical Standards Task Force. This body would specifically focus on corporate influence over legislators, providing a direct mechanism for oversight, investigation, and enforcement that wasn’t previously outlined with such specificity.
Regular Financial Audits of Legislators: To ensure transparency and accountability, one has added provisions for regular audits of legislators’ financial dealings, akin to corporate ethical audits. This addresses your concern about the ongoing potential for corruption through financial incentives, by ensuring that all dealings are transparent and subject to scrutiny.
These additions aim to complement rather than replace the existing legislative solutions. By focusing on these areas, we can effectively reduce corporate influence over legislators, maintain the integrity of federal employment, and uphold democratic values without the complexities of changing employment status from federal to state.
Thank you for highlighting these critical points. Your feedback has helped refine the approach to make it more robust and targeted at addressing the core issues of corruption and undue corporate influence in government. I welcome further suggestions as this policy framework continues to develop.
A convention of the states is NOT a Constitutional Convention. It is a convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states in the same way a congressional proposed amendment is.
this comment is spot on. It used to be back in the 20th century that most states were contributors with many southern states being net recipients of federal funds.
Due to deficit spending and printing money, there are less than 10 states or so that are net contributors to and the rest, including PA are net recipients. About 2/3 of State budgets are directly mandated, controlled or influenced by Federal regulation. So uncle sam takes the money, takes a chunk out of it, then sends it back with lots of federal restrictions. Many state legislators like it because they get ‘free’ money from the federal government to spread out in their districts, making them heros.
have not figured this site out yet. when ‘reply’ is shown directly below a comment it should then be shown below that comment. some of mine are out of place because of this
I’m not going to lie. When I hear, Federal commission to hold legislatures accountable, that sounds like putting leverage power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats over elected representatives (or at best giving some reps power over others), which goes the opposite direction of my intention. I want the power as close to the people as possible, because I don’t trust a ratified document to apply accountability as well as local politics can.
Since you’re talking about a constitutional amendment here, the only “legal and constitutional problems” it could have is if it conflicts with existing laws in a way that breaks something that’s working well. What would it break?
In the end, while you and I have a lot of the same concerns, I think our instincts for what works may be opposite. I’m pretty libertarian so I believe in making a lean government that is as accountable to the people as possible, not a large bureaucracy with a lot of rules to regulate its self. I think when a government is accountable to its self, it will always find a way to interpret those rules in a way that accumulates more power.
One of the reasons we have a ‘mega Constitution’ is that the SCOTUS has coopted the power of review with their review being final, without meaningful check or balance. The position of many groups has become, “Why bother with congress and getting laws passed when we can influence just 12 people and get our law as we want it?”
That could be fixed by an amendment (it would have to arise in a CoS) that states that the power of judicial review to decide any issue cannot be final but must be affirmed or refuted by both houses of congress which are populated by individuals democratically elected, not politically appointed.
An outline for such an amendment would have to constrain congress to address, debate, and decide those issued ajudicated as unconstitional by the courts. Congress must be constrained to do so within rigorous time limits that include sufficient time for research to understand the issues and their consequences. Congressional decisions must entail more than a simple majority (we might debate the merits of 3/5ths, 2/3rds, or 3/4ths) whether they be agreeing with the courts or disagreeing. In any case, congressional decisions should be final as has been the legal principle of stare decisis, subject to change by constitutional amendment by congress or conventions of states. This would eliminate legislation from the bench by appointed, un-elected officials while preserving due process and rule of law using checks and balances as a principal embedded throughout our republic.
Actually, the convention of states refers to an amendment proposing convention by the states under the authority in Article V. Actual wording of any amendment must be hammered out by the delegates and agreed upon by 26 states before it can even be considered a proposed amendment. 38 states would then have to vote to approve any amendment before it would become part of our constitution.
Yes. And it’s been 32 years since the last amendment. Here’s what Article V says:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
