By John Q. Hosedrinker Representative Jayapal introduced the We the People Amendment, a constitutional amendment aiming to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood. The amendment seeks to curtail the undue influence of money in politics by explicitly stating that constitutional rights belong to human beings, not corporations. This would reverse the Citizens United ruling, which drastically increased corporate spending in elections, and mandate the public disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures. The amendment is supported by numerous co-sponsors and aims to restore democratic balance.
Read the original article here
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal’s introduction of a constitutional amendment aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling is a significant development in the ongoing fight for campaign finance reform. This bold move directly addresses the concerns many Americans have about the undue influence of money in politics. The proposed amendment tackles the issue head-on, seeking to fundamentally alter the relationship between corporations, money, and elections.
The amendment proposes a multi-pronged approach. One key provision focuses on clarifying the constitutional rights of artificial entities like corporations and LLCs. The intent is to explicitly state that these entities do not possess the same constitutional rights as natural persons, thus limiting their ability to participate in political spending. This is a direct challenge to the Citizens United decision which equated corporate spending with free speech.
Another critical aspect of the proposed amendment addresses campaign contributions and expenditures. It advocates for government regulation to ensure equitable access to the political process, regardless of economic status. The goal is to prevent individuals from gaining disproportionate influence based solely on their wealth. Transparency is also emphasized, requiring public disclosure of all permissible contributions and expenditures.
Crucially, the amendment seeks to explicitly remove the judicial interpretation of money spent to influence elections as protected speech under the First Amendment. This directly counters the Citizens United ruling’s central premise. While acknowledging concerns about potentially impacting organizations that rely on constitutional protections, the proposed amendment aims to strike a balance, ensuring organizations can operate without fear of unwarranted governmental overreach while curbing the influence of money in politics.
The proposed amendment also addresses the issue of foreign and corporate dark money, a concern echoed by many who see it as a key element in undermining democratic processes. While alternative approaches like the Restore Democracy Amendment and the Accountable Capitalism Act exist and offer different pathways to address this problem, Jayapal’s amendment takes a more fundamental approach, aiming for a long-term solution embedded in the Constitution itself.
The introduction of this amendment has ignited a passionate debate. Supporters see it as a necessary step to restore balance and fairness to the American political system, arguing that the current state of affairs is damaging to democracy and disproportionately benefits wealthy interests. They view this as a pivotal moment to counteract the corrosive influence of money in politics.
Opponents, however, raise concerns about the amendment’s potential impact on free speech and the practical challenges of enacting such a sweeping change. Concerns have also been raised about the timing of the introduction, particularly given the current political climate and the perceived difficulty in achieving the necessary supermajorities to ratify such an amendment. The fact that it’s unlikely to pass in the current Congress doesn’t diminish its significance as a clear statement of intent and a call to action.
Regardless of its likelihood of passage, the amendment serves a vital purpose. It underscores the growing awareness of the profound problems caused by unchecked corporate spending in elections. It’s a rallying point for those who believe that a healthy democracy requires significant campaign finance reform, and it highlights the need for a broader public conversation about the role of money in politics.
The debate surrounding this amendment highlights the fundamental questions about the balance between free speech, campaign finance, and the pursuit of a fair and representative democracy. It’s a conversation that demands to be had, and Jayapal’s initiative serves as a powerful catalyst in that process. The amendment’s introduction, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable political obstacles, serves as a testament to the ongoing struggle to reform campaign finance and restore faith in the democratic process. It’s a clear sign that the fight for a government truly “of the people, by the people, and for the people” continues.