Rain
49°
Rain
Hi 50° | Lo 43°

Letter: Constitutional rights are for people, not corporations

House Concurrent Resolution 2 will be coming up for a vote in the New Hampshire House soon. This resolution requests our representatives in Congress to start the process for a constitutional amendment that says that human beings, not corporations, are entitled to the constitutional rights that are granted to “persons.”

Are corporations persons? Is money speech? If corporations are persons and money equals speech, who decides what speech the money buys?

The rationale behind corporate personhood and therefore the right of corporations to “speak” in our election campaigns is that corporations are made up of people. So do all the people who make up the corporation decide what words the corporation’s money will buy? Is it just the investors, the shareholders? Is it the management? Is it the workers?

If only one group of people who make up the corporation get to decide what is said, is the corporation still a person?

Or is it more than one person, and do the other persons get to spend money as well as to speak?

Sorry to ask so many questions, but I can’t get my head around how a corporation can be a person and get all the constitutional rights of human beings, who are born and die, love and marry, have children and even get executed in Texas.(It’s a joke: I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one). When will corporations get to vote? Then we can ask the same sort of questions.

Ask your representatives to vote Yes on HCR2.

LUCY EDWARDS

Northwood

Legacy Comments6

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the words abortion, government run health care for all or "rights" granted to a whole host of things including "social justice", "economic equality" or anything similar which progressives constantly attempt to justify using the Constitution. If corporations can not participate in elections then the media should not do so and take sides (see mainstream media backing ideology rather than unbiased reporting), unions should not be political, government employees should not have influence. I also might point out, gdn1 that not all Supreme Court justices agree all of the time. Just a FYI, the Supreme Court is the final say and they are not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the current administration.

Nowhere in any definition of "speech" will you find the words money, cash, corporation, politician, or contribution. Only coming from the high court do all these words inter-relate to the meaning of "speech" somehow. Or at least from 5 of them. Citing Roe vs. Wade in to this (freedom of speech) is a rather bizarre twist of logic. The letter isn't about Roe vs. Wade.

My point, gdn1 is that you folks are always throwing up Roe v. Wade as "settled law" because the Supreme Court has ruled the way in which you believe. Well, they have now ruled on "Citizens United" so why is it bizarre to say the same, that it is "settled law"? My other question is simply that you progressives want the government to stay out of our bedroom's, right? Then why are progressives trying to come into our kitchens, telling us how to behave with food? Why are they coming into our homes and telling us how high the railing has to be on our porch or what kind of toilet we need to buy? You folks are quite hypocritical.

Here we go again with the CELDF extremists calling for the end to Citizens United. I find it odd that progressives always insist that "Roe v. Wade" is 'settled law" but in this case they refuse to accept the Supreme Court ruling as 'settled law'. CELDF wants to give natural rights to wild animals in the forest and plants, that should raise the question of the sanity and credibility of those in this movement; a movement which is dangerous and insidiously invades our communities as these folks sneak through warrant articles at town meetings. Edwards highlights the issue with CELDF and their extreme agenda; not understanding that unions and other organizations push the progressive agenda and spend billions to do so. Citizens United simply levels the playing field. If I work for a corporation and my job is dependent on my company lobbying during an election, I am all for it. Remember, there are many folks in unions who do not like the union agenda. So the argument rings hollow that people in corporations who don't believe in the company lobbying for certain things are not represented. If you work for an oil company, for instance and you don't want any more exploration, perhaps you should find another company or field of employment.

It appears people may finally be realizing just what Citizens United has done. I hope this awakening is just the beginning of a process to repeal it. For those who thought the 2012 elections were full of negative ads, just wait until 2014 and 2016. Citizens United has opened the floodgates leading to a torrent of anonymous and corporate political donations. I want to choose between the candidates with the best ideas, not the best funding.

It has been settled law for almost 2 centuries - google Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819 for some education....also Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company1886

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.