Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Florida) introduced an amendment to the constitution to end corporate personhood, appropriately named the OCCUPIED Amendment. This amendment would overturn the controversial Citizens United v. FEC case that equated money to speech and opened the floodgates for previously illegal corporate influence on elections.
Occupied stands for ‘Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy’, which sounds like a swell idea to me!
The Blood Oath:
I do so solemnly swear that I believe with the deepest conviction that money is not speech and that only human beings are persons entitled to constitutional rights including the right to access the legislative process and the right to influence politicians, political campaigns and elections.
Furthermore, I promise to use my position as an elected official to make a priority of instituting and/or supporting a process whereby corporate person-hood is legally dissolved and the concept of money as speech is legally abolished.
Those that swear by The Blood Oath will not be required to run a blade across their palms. The Blood Oath is a symbolic recognition that human beings have blood running through their veins and corporations do not. Elected officials and those seeking elected office will be asked to swear by The Blood Oath; their accedence or refusal shall be well publicized. [Read more](http:www.outlierideas.com/2011/11/blood-oath-public-comment-period-open.html)
Corporate Personhood is a genuinely evil idea forced through fraudulently in the 1890’s. It should be taken out back and drowned.
PS I like your blog
There is a second evil concept that was adopted by SCOTUS in the 1980s and now has a substantial body of case law behind it. It could very well make an end run around an amendment like this. That is, that freedom of speech cannot restrict your right to HEAR an idea. Thus, it doesn’t matter whether the “speaker” is a person or a corporation, the first amendment guarantees that you as a natural person and U.S. citizen cannot be denied the right to hear what they have to say.
In short, the argument claims that restricting a corporation’s right to speak is a violation of YOUR civil rights, not the corporation’s. Thanks, SCOTUS, for your wisdom! lol
Gosh, SCOTUS is so concerned about our welfare, isn’t they?