Worried about our Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning campaign spending limits on corporations? Help is on the way from Donna Edwards who has introduced H.J.RES.74: John Conyers has co-sponsored.
It’s a great resolution but they can’t do this alone. Call them and thank them. Then call your Representative and ask her/him to sign on. Congressional switchboard 202-224-3121.
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),
`Article–
`Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
`Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’.
More details: thomas.gov
– Eva-Lee Baird
for the Granny Peace Brigade
Granny Peace Brigade 
Fabulous! Thank you Eva Lee! Another “front” to address and we should thank Donna Edwards and John Conyers for this…not to mention what we should be doing re: our Senators and Congressional Representatives. Let’s go at ’em!
LikeLike
The notion that corporations are people is one of the most pernicious lies of the right wing of the judiciary (which is most of the judiciary, these days). It started around 1900 with a misinterpretation of a Supreme Court decision by a chief justice and a clerk, and has now ballooned into the reason corporations can purchase congress members at will. The Roberts decision must be stopped, and Donna Edwards & John Conyers seem to be the only ones with the moxie to try. Thank you for publicizing this!
LikeLike
I believe, although well intentioned, Amendment proposed in H.J. Res. 74 is (1) too vague and will lead to opposition that will defeat passage, (2) too limited in scope to accomplish meaningful reform of corporation power, and (3) could even be detrimental .
If the Proposed Amendment should be passed and ratified, an army of corporation lawyers will (probably successfully) argue that the matter of corporations being persons has now been answered because the Constitution then recognized corporations as persons for all rights except that “Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech”. Indeed, they will argue, if the Amendment was intended to limit other rights of corporations, it would have been so stated. It is obvious that the Proposed Amendment will benefit corporations at the expense of the citizenry.
I suggest the following Proposed Amendment as a starting point for further discussion:
“Section 1. Only natural persons shall be considered citizens of the United States.
Section 2. Un-natural entities created by man shall not enjoy the rights granted by this document except as those granted by the Congress.”
LikeLike