Question of the week: “Would you support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling brought by Citizen’s United that declared corporations are the same as people which led to the creation of Super Pacs?”
- Karen Anderson: “No. I do not believe in wasting time chasing rainbows. It is very tough to pass a constitutional amendment (as it should be) regardless of my personal feeling about PACs.”
-Dave Appling: “Yes. Citizens United is the worst case in memory of ‘legislating from the bench.’ Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, created to serve the body politic – certainly not to give artificial persons the rights of human beings. The Supremes’ decision would be ludicrous, were it not so harmful to the integrity of the electoral process.”
-
Bert Berson: “Yes, without question. It is outrageous that one individual in the 5-4 vote could doom democracy in this country. The Republican primary race is an in your face example of the damage that was done. I would prefer a solution that did not require a change in the constitution and several have been proposed. Whatever the approach we need to make a change. The court majority far exceeded the issues in the case and decided to amend the constitution through a judicial ruling. The inmates took over the asylum.”
-
Chris Bryant: “No, however, given that this ruling attributed to corporations the same classification as individuals, spending by corporations (and Super Pacs) for the benefit of any political candidate should have the same limits as individual direct contributions to a candidate.”
-
David Cohen: “Yes.” n Dennis Kennedy: “Yes.”
-
Henry Miller: “No. In business school, we learned that corporations are individuals created by the state. Same class of rules, obligations and privileges. But there are differences and therefore different rules can apply to PACs. Don’t need to mess with the Constitution to do that. Got that Nino!”
-
Jeff Nunes: “No. Free speech is a messy exercise and we must take the good with the bad or we don’t really have free speech at all. The First Amendment protects speech, it does not guarantee the results of or the fairness of the effect of such speech, which is in essence the argument against the Court’s decision. And, the idea that money in politics is some recent phenomena because of the Court’s decision is a gross simplification of the political system, free speech jurisprudence and the application of the First Amendment in our society.”
-
Lisa Pampuch: “Yes. Citizens United has perverted our electoral system in ways we’re only starting to understand. Corporations are not people, money is not speech.”
-
Steve Staloch: “Yes! The Supreme Court’s ruling that the First Amendment protects corporations and unions the same as individuals with regard to the ability to spend money to influence elections was the death knell for any hope of true election reform so vital to safeguarding democracy. The influence this decision bestowed on major defense contractors, health care providers, unions and pharmaceutical companies dramatically dilutes the sanctity and weight of ‘one person, one vote.’”
