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