Politics & Government

McGovern Seeks to Remove 'Person' Status from Companies, Limit Election Spending [POLL]

Marlborough's congressman introduced a bill Tuesday that would add a new amendment to the Constitution and overturn a Supreme Court decision made early in 2010.

(3rd—MA) introduced a bill to Congress Tuesday seeking to overturn a recent Supreme Court ruling that has altered long-standing policies pertaining to campaign finance and freedom of speech in elections. 

The 5-4 Supreme Court January 2010 (Citizens United v. FEC) decision overturned a lower court's 2008 ruling, saying that the First Amendment guarantees the rights of private businesses to spend their money as they see fit and support political candidates in a public fashion. 

Proponents of the decision saw it as a win for businesses large and small, while detractors said it was just another opportunity for big business with big money to unduly influence elections. 

Find out what's happening in Marlboroughwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

McGovern's introduction of the “People’s Rights Amendment" comes at a time when the topic is hot among groups such as Occupy Wall Street that say such a bill would go towards "restoring democracy" to the people.
 
“Corporations are not people,” said McGovern. “They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in war. They are artificial entities which we the people create and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around.
 
“The Citizens United ruling,” McGovern continued, “marks the most extreme extension of a corporate rights doctrine which has eroded our First Amendment and our Constitution. Now is the time for a 28th Amendment that lifts up the promise of American self-government: of, for, and by the people.”

McGovern's proposed amendment comes in conjunction with other Democrats in Congress, such as Sen. Tom Udall's co-sponsored petition to bring attention to the matter. 

Find out what's happening in Marlboroughwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

We must put the American people back in charge of our democracy," said Udall in a blog on the Huffington Post. "If the Supreme Court refuses to allow Congress and individual states to regulate the role of money in our elections, we must amend the Constitution to change that—and together, we are beginning the amendment process this month."

In the majority statement made by Justice Scalia in their decision, the Court held any other verdict would infringe on freedom of speech. 

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," wrote Scalia.

The majority opinion held that another decision could potentially limit the free speech of media, as the law does not differentiate between media companies and other corporations. 

Those who supported the decision were a mixed bag of strange bedfellows including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Review, saying it was a win for free speech.

As of Tuesday, several high profile organizations were lining up to support McGovern's proposed amendment.
 
“We are proud to stand with Congressman McGovern at this historic moment,” said John Bonifaz, the co-founder and director of Free Speech For People, a national non-partisan campaign launched on the day of the Citizens United ruling which authored the People’s Rights Amendment and has been mobilizing support throughout the nation for its enactment.  “For the first time, the United States Congress now has the opportunity to debate a constitutional amendment bill that raises the fundamental question of whether people or corporations shall govern in America.”

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to keep up to date on the latest Marlborough news, or simply hit the "like" button at the top of this page.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here