Thanks, Wally. Our Dickinson County Democratic Caucuses are this
weekend. Will propose a resolution with this language.
Donna
On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Wallace Taylor wrote:
> Actually, the ruling said nothing about corporate personhood. It was
> a reference in a headnote of the case to a passing comment made by
> one of the justices in oral argument. I have read the history of the
> Santa Clara case and subsequent cases and it still baffles me how a
> headnote became binding precedent.
>
> A few years ago I submitted an amicus brief in the Eighth Circuit
> when Smithfield Foods claimed that Iowa's law against vertical
> integration of the meat industry violated its constitutional rights.
> Of course, the court ignored my argument.
>
> I have proposed an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to address
> corporate personhood and I have tried to get it into the Iowa
> Democratic Party platform, but it never gets anywhere. The proposed
> amendment is:
>
> ARTICLE VIII, CORPORATIONS
>
> Limitations on the Rights and Powers of Corporations. Sec. 12.
> Corporatonis are nothing more than business organizations created
> pursuant to Section 1 of this Article. Corporations have only those
> powers and rights specifically granted to them by the law creating
> them. Corporations are not persons or citizens under the law, and
> they have none of the rights of natural persons.
>
>
> Wally Taylor
>
> The First Amendment was expanded, in effect, by the 1885 US Supreme
> Court ruling, Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Searles, Leland <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 12:00 pm
> Subject: Re: High Court Unleases Tsunami of Corporate Cash w/
> Citizens United Ruling
>
> The First Amendment was expanded, in effect, by the 1885 US Supreme
> Court ruling, Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad
> Company. The decision grants the legal-political status of “person”
> to corporations. This didn’t come out of the blue, as historical
> developments from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution paved
> the way. Talk about “activist judges,” Santa Clara v So Pacific is a
> regrettable decision and the effective law of the land.
>
> In everyday language and quite possibly in courts of law, “people”
> and “persons” are quite interchangeable. It’s not a very big
> loophole for corporate attorneys and judges to fail to parse the
> words adequately.
> Leland Searles
> Air Quality Program Director
> Iowa Environmental Council
> 521 E. Locust St., Suite 220
> Des Moines, Iowa 50309
> 515-244-1194 ext. 204
> 515-979-6457 (cell)
> About the Iowa Environmental Council:
>
> The Iowa Environmental Council actively works in public policy to
> provide a safe, healthy environment for all Iowans. We focus on
> public education and coalition building to give Iowans a voice on
> issues that affect their quality of life. For more information
> contact the Iowa Environmental Council or visit www.iaenvironment.org.
>
> Please do not print this email unless it is absolutely necessary.
> Spread environmental awareness.
>
> From: Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ] On Behalf Of Donna Buell
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:53 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: High Court Unleases Tsunami of Corporate Cash w/
> Citizens United Ruling
>
> The First Amendment refers to "people". Corporations are not
> people. It's nice to know Sierra Club supports campaign finance
> reform. We need it for Iowa politics, too.
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Neila Seaman wrote:
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 21, 2010
> CONTACT: Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384
> High Court Unleashes Tsunami of
> Corporate Cash with Citizens United Ruling
> Washington, D.C.--The U.S. Supreme Court today, in its ruling in the
> case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, struck down
> significant portions of campaign finance laws. In particular, the
> case removed restrictions in place for decades that have limited
> campaign spending from corporations. The Sierra Club offered the
> following comments in response.
> The High Court's ruling can be viewed here:
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
> Statement of Cathy Duvall, Political Director of Sierra Club
> "We are extremely troubled and dismayed by today's decision. It
> appears that the High Court confirmed our worst fears with its
> sweeping ruling that cast aside the laws that protected us from
> unlimited corporate campaign spending.
> "Congress is already awash in a sea of special interest money; this
> decision will launch a tsunami of corporate cash whose purpose is to
> overrun the public's interests. Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and other
> special interests have a stranglehold on the Congress and today's
> ruling will further endanger the ability of citizens to influence
> the political process. This ruling could put today's "pay-to-play"
> political culture on steroids.
> "We already have very clear indications of the dangers that lie
> ahead. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been involved in
> today's case, reported just yesterday that it spent a record-
> breaking $71 million on lobbying last quarter. Even before today's
> decision, it has already been laundering hundreds of millions of
> dollars in corporate cash, most notably for the health insurance
> industry and polluters, and has pledged to spend tens of millions of
> dollars in this year's elections. Now it and the special interests
> that fund it will be allowed to spend limitless amounts not only in
> the legislative process, but to support or oppose individual
> candidates.
> "Now only Congress can stem the tidal wave of special interest cash
> and influence peddling that is about to overwhelm the electoral
> process. The Sierra Club has long supported campaign finance reform
> and we now urge Congress to find a solution to help candidates
> combat the expected increase in spending on independent
> expenditures. In particular, we support passage of the Fair
> Elections Now Act."
> # # #
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To
> unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]
> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To
> unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]
> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To
> unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]
> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To
> unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]
> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
|
