Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 5, 2012 16:28:14 GMT -5
In reading over the Kent Greenfield article Jon Denn posted about Why Progressives Should Oppose a Constitutional Amendment to End Corporate Personhood, I got to thinking about a fundamental debate that I'm not sure we really ever had. I think most of us who are active on these forums understand the pitfalls of Ending Corporate Personhood, and understand that we can also get the reforms we really need without addressing corporate personhood.
The end of the article, where he states "A constitutional amendment distracts from remedies that are targeted, possible, and effectual." got me thinking. At this point he seems to be speaking more broadly than just corporate personhood, but the problem is he doesn't say anything about what these remedies are, and the idea that a Constitutional Amendment is an uphill battle is really nothing more than a copout.
Now I really want people who know more about this than I do to weigh in here, but the question is can we really achieve the things we deem necessary through the legislative process? Here is my assessment:
1. Complete transparency in donations to political/issue advocacy groups
I would like to say yes, but the reality is I don't think we can be sure. I would be worried that the Supreme Court could strike such a law down based on privacy being necessary to protect freedom of speech, or a generally broad reading of Constitutional rights to privacy.
2. A) Limit direct campaign contributions to an amount most can afford B) allow only individuals to make direct campaign contributions C) increasing public funding of campaigns to help level playing field
First, I'll say that there are a lot of ways we could go about limiting the influence of money in politics, so I'm not saying all of these are necessary, but they seem to be the basic options.
In light of the Citizens United decision, and the recent ruling against Montana, A and B would seem to require a Constitutional Amendment. C would likely be possible without one, and could also include a sort of public election tax where people could say who they want to donate to. The only issue here is that without reasonable caps on donations, the market is easily inflated to something much larger than it really needs to be.
3. End gerrymandering through non-partisan independent redistricting commissions.
Probably doesn't require an Amendment, though there may be some states' rights issues at play here, making it hard to do at a federal level.
Here's the article: www.huffingtonpost.com/kent-greenfield/why-progressives-should-o_b_1231884.html
Also, the bottom line is that constitutional amendments are certainly stronger than legislation, and cannot be chipped away at or altered nearly as easily, so if we are looking for a permanent solution here, it would seem at least the basic foundation of it should be laid with an Amendment.
The end of the article, where he states "A constitutional amendment distracts from remedies that are targeted, possible, and effectual." got me thinking. At this point he seems to be speaking more broadly than just corporate personhood, but the problem is he doesn't say anything about what these remedies are, and the idea that a Constitutional Amendment is an uphill battle is really nothing more than a copout.
Now I really want people who know more about this than I do to weigh in here, but the question is can we really achieve the things we deem necessary through the legislative process? Here is my assessment:
1. Complete transparency in donations to political/issue advocacy groups
I would like to say yes, but the reality is I don't think we can be sure. I would be worried that the Supreme Court could strike such a law down based on privacy being necessary to protect freedom of speech, or a generally broad reading of Constitutional rights to privacy.
2. A) Limit direct campaign contributions to an amount most can afford B) allow only individuals to make direct campaign contributions C) increasing public funding of campaigns to help level playing field
First, I'll say that there are a lot of ways we could go about limiting the influence of money in politics, so I'm not saying all of these are necessary, but they seem to be the basic options.
In light of the Citizens United decision, and the recent ruling against Montana, A and B would seem to require a Constitutional Amendment. C would likely be possible without one, and could also include a sort of public election tax where people could say who they want to donate to. The only issue here is that without reasonable caps on donations, the market is easily inflated to something much larger than it really needs to be.
3. End gerrymandering through non-partisan independent redistricting commissions.
Probably doesn't require an Amendment, though there may be some states' rights issues at play here, making it hard to do at a federal level.
Here's the article: www.huffingtonpost.com/kent-greenfield/why-progressives-should-o_b_1231884.html
Also, the bottom line is that constitutional amendments are certainly stronger than legislation, and cannot be chipped away at or altered nearly as easily, so if we are looking for a permanent solution here, it would seem at least the basic foundation of it should be laid with an Amendment.