News Is Amendment XXVIII a Radical Restriction on Freedom of Speech?

[Skyhunter]

Congresswoman Donna Edwards has introduced http://freespeechforpeople.org/amendment" (And it is not a ban on same sex couples.)

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q6cehXA5mHo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q6cehXA5mHo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Vanadium 50]

If this passes, what is to stop Congress from banning corporate or union spending in favor of the minority party? Or for that matter, requiring corporate or union spending in favor of the majority party?

This is democracy?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure I agree or disagree but at least she understands that an amendment is required for this. An awful lot of people including politicians don't seem to get it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If this passes, what is to stop Congress from banning corporate or union spending in favor of the minority party? Or for that matter, requiring corporate or union spending in favor of the majority party?

This is democracy?

I think an amendment is in order, but getting the language right will take some doing.

Yes, this is how democracy works. I don't understand the objection; or is the objection strictly in regards to the language proposed here?

 

[BobG]

But the Contract Clause of the Constitution still can limit Congress and the States?

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This was included to stop "powerful" people from having their debts dismissed (State legislature would dismiss the debt, as bankruptcy laws didn't exist back then). A major side effect was to limit the ability of Congress and/or individual states to modify the corporate charters of corporations, once formed. You can't change the rules after the fact. Another side effect of this clause was that it was used to justify denying the right to secede to the Confederacy.

I'm not positive, but maybe her wording should be more specific (similar to the section making sure there was no confusion over freedom of the press). I don't think it would be good to inadvertantly repeal the Contract Clause of the US Constitution.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What an awful amendment. It would allow laws like "Unions can't spend money to support candidates" or even "The Democratic party can't spend money to support candidates".

If you're going to mess with free speech, you'd better do it carefully -- you're playing with fire.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If this passes, what is to stop Congress from banning corporate or union spending in favor of the minority party?

any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law

Not any corporation, just certain ones.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But the Contract Clause of the Constitution still can limit Congress and the States?



This was included to stop "powerful" people from having their debts dismissed (State legislature would dismiss the debt, as bankruptcy laws didn't exist back then). A major side effect was to limit the ability of Congress and/or individual states to modify the corporate charters of corporations, once formed. Another side effect of this clause was that it was used to justify denying the right to secede to the Confederacy.

I'm not positive, but maybe her wording should be more specific (similar to the article making sure there was no confusion over freedom of the press). I don't think it would be good to inadvertantly repeal the Contract Clause of the US Constitution.

How does this affect corporate charters or the obligation of contracts?

 

[BobG]

How does this affect corporate charters or the obligation of contracts?

I think her wording is pretty clear - especially when compared to the Second Amendment. It just pays to make sure that the wording can't be misconstrued. While I think it's clear that the Amendment is saying the First Amendment can't be considered a restriction, the things the article mentions are things the Contract Clause prevents from being modified after the fact.

For example, New Jersey issued bonds to finance the World Trade Center back in the 60's and had contractually promised the bondholders that the collateral would not be used to finance money losing rail operations. Later, New Jersey attempted to modify law to allow financing of railway operations, and the bondholders successfully sued to prevent this from happening. Eventually, the case wound up in the US Supreme Court, with the suit being upheld based on the Contract Clause prohibiting changing the contract after the fact through legislation.

I'm not saying the Contract Clause would prevent the Edwards Amendment from taking affect, since the Amendment would overrule the clause in the Constitution. I'm just saying the clause serves a useful purpose and it wouldn't be good to have people think it's been overruled.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A general comment: I have already emailed my Senators and Congressman, indicating our support for a Constitutional Amendment to correct this aberration in the law of the land. I urge all other US citizens here to do the same. Tell your friends to do the same.

 

[CRGreathouse]

A general comment: I have already emailed my Senators and Congressman, indicating our support for a Constitutional Amendment to correct this aberration in the law of the land. I urge all other US citizens here to do the same. Tell your friends to do the same.

I hope you don't support it in its current form, though! Any suggestions for fixing it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hope you don't support it in its current form, though! Any suggestions for fixing it?

I didn't reference any particular language or this particular proposal. I may have some comments about the specifics later, but for now I can only say that an amendment is needed. I agree that this is dicey territory and we need to be very careful.

For me, the SC decision only helps to accentuate a problem that has long required attention.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, this is how democracy works. I don't understand the objection; or is the objection strictly in regards to the language proposed here?

The objection for me is that I like the first amendment and it makes me very nervous to cut into it, even though the general idea of campaign finance reform is appealing to me. Specifically, though, the proposed amendment is very broad - too broad.

As the long thread on the recent USSC decision showed, a great many people just haven't thought through the full implications of such laws/amendments. Liberals don't seem to get that restricting Merck from giving money to politicians has implications for unions and MoveOn, as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree. But I think your objections apply to people of all political brands. Liberals [typically meaning Dems], Conservatives [typically meaning Reps] of various types, and probably most Independents can get behind something like this and perhaps overreact.

Most Liberals will also be quick to defend free speech.

 

[BobG]

Liberals don't seem to get that restricting Merck from giving money to politicians has implications for unions and MoveOn, as well.

Would it be so bad if it had implications for the Republican Party and Democratic Party, as well?

Personally, I'd be for eliminating any party affiliation from ballots. If a voter can't even remember the name of the candidate they want elected, then their choice probably isn't any better than a random choice, anyway.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One difference that I see between a body like a union, and a corporation, is that presumably The Union represents the majority view of all people within the organization, whereas a corporation can exploit the wealth of many to promote the views of an elite few.

 

[BobG]

One difference that I see between a body like a union, and a corporation, is that presumably The Union represents the majority view of all people within the organization, whereas a corporation can exploit the wealth of many to promote the views of an elite few.

Technically, a corporation might exploit the wealth of many to promote a view no one shares.

If the individuals running the corporation do their job the way they're supposed to, they should take whatever (legal) action brings in the most money for the corporation - even if it's something they personally don't approve of doing.

It might be in a corporation's best interest to do something like run attack ads against the vicious dolphins fouling the nets of the poor, but honest, tuna fishermen.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is an issue that needs to be debated.

Amending the Constitution should only be done sober... with much deliberation.

 

[BobG]

.

Amending the Constitution should only be done sober... with much deliberation.

Does this apply to every amendment? Surely it can't apply to both the 18th and the 21st Amendment.

I always like the amendment to Colorado's Constitution that created article XXVI - Nuclear Detonation. In the middle of the cold war, Colorado banned nuclear explosions in our state. The USSR was totally stymied, which is why the Air Force has so many bases in the state.

 

[Skyhunter]

Does this apply to every amendment? Surely it can't apply to both the 18th and the 21st Amendment.

I always like the amendment to Colorado's Constitution that created article XXVI - Nuclear Detonation. In the middle of the cold war, Colorado banned nuclear explosions in our state. The USSR was totally stymied, which is why the Air Force has so many bases in the state.

I said that is how it should be amended. I didn't mean to imply that is how it is done historically.

The 14th IMO is one most in need of repeal.

 

[edpell]

I do not like section 2. I feel it conflicts with section 1. I would delete section 2. We can limit incorporated entities. This will leave elections to be decided by the spending of rich individuals. My... that will not be much of a change.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I didn't reference any particular language or this particular proposal. I may have some comments about the specifics later, but for now I can only say that an amendment is needed. I agree that this is dicey territory and we need to be very careful.

I would be most interested in your thoughtful opinion on the subject.

 

[russ_watters]

Would it be so bad if it had implications for the Republican Party and Democratic Party, as well?

Being applied evenly across party lines isn't the only issue - it isn't even the biggest issue. The biggest issue is whether the general concept of restricting people's ability to pool their political influence is a good or bad thing.

Personally, I'd be for eliminating any party affiliation from ballots. If a voter can't even remember the name of the candidate they want elected, then their choice probably isn't any better than a random choice, anyway.

I would agree with that...doesn't have a whole lot to do with the thread, though...

 

[russ_watters]

One difference that I see between a body like a union, and a corporation, is that presumably The Union represents the majority view of all people within the organization, whereas a corporation can exploit the wealth of many to promote the views of an elite few.

?? Both a union and a corporation represent everyone in them. People choose to be a part of both, even if they don't agree with every specific act!

Ie:

Technically, a corporation might exploit the wealth of many to promote a view no one shares.

If the individuals running the corporation do their job the way they're supposed to, they should take whatever (legal) action brings in the most money for the corporation - even if it's something they personally don't approve of doing.

It might be in a corporation's best interest to do something like run attack ads against the vicious dolphins fouling the nets of the poor, but honest, tuna fishermen.

Individuals can and do often have conflicting or contradictory points of view, but externally what matters is what you do. A company exists to make money and an employee works for the company to make money. That's perfect harmony.

If a person works for a tuna company and feels bad that the tuna company is killing dolphins, that's their own hypocrisy causing the stomach ache - it is not a conflict between the employee and the company. If it hurts enough to matter, quit (and if it hurts enough to go against the company, get fired). Can't quit because you need the money? Well, you've just decided which is more important, haven't you?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Bad comparison, russ. Employees are free to work or not work for a company, but companies represent the stockholders not the workers.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not sure I agree or disagree but at least she understands that an amendment is required for this. An awful lot of people including politicians don't seem to get it.

While I would agree that an amendment is the most decisive manner in which to accomplish the aim I do not see as how it is required. Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution and their rights as 'legal persons' are extended and limited via common, state, federal, and case law. Otherwise they would not necessarily be entitled to any rights what so ever.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

?? Both a union and a corporation represent everyone in them. People choose to be a part of both, even if they don't agree with every specific act!

So if I choose to invest in a corporation I should keep track on wall street and look into the politics of whom ever happens to be on the board of directors at the time? That's pretty ridiculous. Its one thing to not approve of the manner in which a company operates, it is a whole other can of worms to find out what their politics are and what political campaigns they are running on the side.

 

[russ_watters]

Bad comparison, russ. Employees are free to work or not work for a company, but companies represent the stockholders not the workers.

The workers don't get to vote at shareholder meetings, but they cast their vote in a much more direct way: by showing up for work. An awful lot of people have an us-vs-them view of companies and their workers, but it just isn't a reality. There is no dichotomy or division: the workers are part of the company.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, people working for the corporation just want a job. That does not suggest that they support the company's political agenda. Geez, Russ, do you really think a guy who needs a job votes with his resume. That is absurd!

Does the corporation post their political options in front of investors and workers, and take a vote on which agenda to support? A union does; or at least they effectively do through an internal representative democracy.

I agree, SA, investment markets are not a Constitutional component of the public election process.

 

[russ_watters]

While I would agree that an amendment is the most decisive manner in which to accomplish the aim I do not see as how it is required. Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution and their rights as 'legal persons' are extended and limited via common, state, federal, and case law. Otherwise they would not necessarily be entitled to any rights what so ever.

Corporations as "legal persons" is a natural extension of individual rights. That "case law" is interpretation of the consitution.

 

[russ_watters]

So if I choose to invest in a corporation I should keep track on wall street and look into the politics of whom ever happens to be on the board of directors at the time? That's pretty ridiculous.

There are quite a lot of people who make investment decisions based on their view of the morality of companies. I'm not saying you should (nor am I saying that I typically do) - I'm just saying it happens.

Its one thing to not approve of the manner in which a company operates, it is a whole other can of worms to find out what their politics are and what political campaigns they are running on the side.

Whether you choose to look into it or not, you are paying for it, therefore you are partly responsible for it. So if you're a person who cares, you should look into it.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, people working for the corporation just want a job.

Correct.

That does not suggest that they support the company's political agenda.

Yeah, it really does. Don't think for a second that if you do something illegal because your company asks you to, that defense will keep you out of jail. You make the choice. Your choice to work for the company is a choice to support their adjenda because you are doing work that helps them achieve that adjenda! They may not support their company in the intellectual sense, but they do in the physical sense and the physical sense is the one that matters. Again, a person can choose to doublethink all they want (thinking that an objection that exists only in their heads can override their actions in support of their company), but it doesn't change that reality.

Does the corporation post their political options in front of investors and workers, and take a vote on which agenda to support? A union does; or at least they effectively do through an internal representative democracy.

How exactly does a union do it where a corporation does not? Are you saying a union runs all their political ads and positions by their members for a vote before airing them?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are quite a lot of people who make investment decisions based on their view of the morality of companies. I'm not saying you should (nor am I saying that I typically do) - I'm just saying it happens. Whether you choose to look into it or not, you are paying for it, therefore you are partly responsible for it. So if you're a person who cares, you should look into it.

Now you are making moral, not legal judgements or arguments. Take it to church on Sunday.

 

[hamster143]

It seems to me that the amendment, as proposed, would essentially give the government a carte blanche to impose any kind of censorship it wants on the mass media; since every TV channel and every news company is a corporation or a LLC. Needless to say, a very bad idea.

 

[russ_watters]

Now you are making moral, not legal judgements or arguments. Take it to church on Sunday.

? I don't attend church (regularly) nor do I believe a person needs to be religious to have morality. People can object to the views of a company for a host of different reasons - moral, religious, heck, maybe they don't like the paint color of the corporate headquarters! That's a freedom that people have, to exercise as they wish.

What the heck are you talking about, Ivan?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Corporations as "legal persons" is a natural extension of individual rights. That "case law" is interpretation of the consitution.

Corporations have status as 'legal persons' by common law to resolve legal issues with regard to the associated contract law. It is by no means a natural extension of individual rights. And yes, case law involves interpretation of constitution as it applies to the rights of corporations but those rights are both given and limited by bodies of law outside the constitution. 'Legal persons' receive limited rights as outlined by the laws that define the legal fiction in the first place so altering those laws should technically be sufficient.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It seems to me that the amendment, as proposed, would essentially give the government a carte blanche to impose any kind of censorship it wants on the mass media; since every TV channel and every news company is a corporation or a LLC. Needless to say, a very bad idea.

Freedom of the press is a separate issue with its own host of laws and case law. This could in no way defeat that and the particular amendment even specifies "Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press."

 

[russ_watters]

Corporations have status as 'legal persons' by common law to resolve legal issues with regard to the associated contract law. It is by no means a natural extension of individual rights. And yes, case law involves interpretation of constitution as it applies to the rights of corporations but those rights are both given and limited by bodies of law outside the constitution. 'Legal persons' receive limited rights as outlined by the laws that define the legal fiction in the first place so altering those laws should technically be sufficient.

I'll put this as plainly as I can: you cannot overrule a court decision via legislation.

That's what this whole issue is about! The Congress passed a law that didn't fit with legal precident in interpreting the Constitution and so that law was struck down. Congress has no recourse except to amend the Constitution - they can't just pass another law overriding the USSC decision.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'll put this as plainly as I can: you cannot overrule a court decision via legislation.

That's what this whole issue is about! The Congress passed a law that didn't fit with legal precident in interpreting the Constitution and so that law was struck down. Congress has no recourse except to amend the Constitution - they can't just pass another law overriding the USSC decision.

How would rewriting the legal definition of a corporation to specify the exact rights that they are afforded, including limitations on free speech, be a direct overturn of the decision? The constitution does not define the rights of corporations. The law does. Even this amendment does nothing but specify that congress has the authority to make such laws (which ought to be evident) to prevent further contrary court decisions.

 

[noblegas]

She said she represents the American people and that is why she is pushing for the 28th amendment; Last time I check, the individuals who make up a corporation are part of the American people as well. If there is no limit to how much money one individual or a collection of individuals can donate to a political campaign or two, then the same rule should apply to corporations as well. I think if the politician becomes corrupted as a result of the large sums of money that they received from a corporation, then the politician should be punished not a corporation and he/she will be punished whether through legal means or not being elected again by his previous constiuents come election time. It was not like the corporation seduced the politicians to abide by the corporations interests. Besides, corporations are not the only groups of people capable of corrupting politicians or any institution. Can anyone say teacher's union?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

She said she represents the American people and that is why she is pushing for the 28th amendment; Last time I check, the individuals who make up a corporation are part of the American people as well. If there is no limit to how much money one individual or a collection of individuals can donate to a political campaign or two, then the same rule should apply to corporations as well. I think if the politician becomes corrupted as a result of the large sums of money that they received from a corporation, then the politician should be punished not a corporation and he/she will be punished whether through legal means or not being elected again by his previous constiuents come election time. It was not like the corporation seduced the politicians to abide by the corporations interests. Besides, corporations are not the only groups of people capable of corrupting politicians or any institution. Can anyone say teacher's union?

There are limits on how much one can contribute unless one is running their own personal campaign which naturally is limited only to persons capable of getting together enough money to accomplish such a thing. A corporation is not necessary. All of those persons who belong to a corporation or are invested in it have no less right to their freedom of speech than anyone else if they are prevented from using a corporation for that purpose.

 

[noblegas]

There are limits on how much one can contribute unless one is running their own personal campaign which naturally is limited only to persons capable of getting together enough money to accomplish such a thing. A corporation is not necessary. All of those persons who belong to a corporation or are invested in it have no less right to their freedom of speech than anyone else if they are prevented from using a corporation for that purpose.

I think it depends on the group of individuals. There is no limit for how much money a national party committee may give to a national party committee or a local, state and regional committee. What do you mean a corporation is not necessary? Are you saying that it is not necessary for a group of individuals to be under the corporation banner when donating money to a political campaign or a political committee?

My problem with this amendment is that it pertains only to corporations and allows congress and state governments to regulate the activity of corporations , but it does not mention any other special interests group or aggregation of individuals. Sure the proposed 28th amendment mentions 'limited liability' or corporate entity, but it does not explicitly mention any other special interests group that may carry out the same alleged actions of a corporation.

 

[Skyhunter]

The biggest issue is whether the general concept of restricting people's ability to pool their political influence is a good or bad thing.

I don't see that as an issue at all. The issue is whether or not unions and corporations, fictitious entities created as tools of business and labor, and other fictitious entities created for specific purposes, are endowed with the same inalienable rights as a human being.

The answer is clearly NO!

There are many tools available for people to pool their political influence together. Corporations, unions, non-profits, etc, are not people. Restricting their activities does not infringe on the rights of a true person.

The 14th Amendment was unnecessary IMO, and a good example of why amending the Constitution should be done deliberately, not in reaction to a temporary condition. The North was afraid that the South would dominate the government after reconstruction, since they now had ²/₅ more apportionment for each former male slave. The 14th Amendment was the feel good remedy which expanded federal power to regulate State elections in the guise of guaranteeing rights that the Constitution already guarantees. Rights the Constitution declares are inalienable and endowed by the Creator.

After passage the Northern States felt they could safely end the reconstruction. As for the former slaves well, the 14th Amendment did little to improve their condition. Between it's ratification in 1886 and 1910, there were 307 14th Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court. Of those only 19 were about the rights of African American men. (women still didn't have suffrage) The other 288 were about expanding the rights of corporations.

 

[noblegas]

There are many tools available for people to pool their political influence together. Corporations, unions, non-profits, etc, are not people. Restricting their activities does not infringe on the rights of a true person.

There not? Well if there not , then who exactly runs these organizations if they are not people then?

The 14th Amendment was unnecessary IMO, and a good example of why amending the Constitution should be done deliberately, not in reaction to a temporary condition. The North was afraid that the South would dominate the government after reconstruction, since they now had 2/5 more apportionment for each former male slave. The 14th Amendment was the feel good remedy which expanded federal power to regulate State elections in the guise of guaranteeing rights that the Constitution already guarantees. Rights the Constitution declares are inalienable and endowed by the Creator.

Really? I thought it was about prohibiting the State governments as well as the federal government from creating laws that would infringed upon the liberties of individual citizens rather than just prohibiting the federal government from creating laws that would infringed upon the rights of the states concerning creating laws. I don't think the fourteenth amendment was very effective in accomplishing its stated goals for their were many state and local laws leading upto the end of Jim Crow in the South that prevented individuals from exercising personal liberties such as having the bible being taught in public schools , the ku klux klan having the political ability to pass state laws that prohibited private citizens from forming their own private schools in the state of Oregon, and of course blacks were not allowed to enter white owned establishments and businesses.

 

[Skyhunter]

My problem with this amendment is that it pertains only to corporations and allows congress and state governments to regulate the activity of corporations , but it does not mention any other special interests group or aggregation of individuals. Sure the proposed 28th amendment mentions 'limited liability' or corporate entity, but it does not explicitly mention any other special interests group that may carry out the same alleged actions of a corporation.

The amendment makes no allegations. It simply states that Congress has the authority to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and activities of corporations.

Corporations are different from special interest groups which are usually formed to carry out political advocacy. The law is not intended to infringe on and regulate political speech or the right to freely assemble. It is intended to limit the activities of corporations not people. Going further, as you suggest, would be a disaster for Democracy.

When one works for a corporation, we exchange a limited resource, our time, for a portion of the wealth created by our sacrifice. The corporation keeps a portion of the wealth we create, as the organizing entity. The corporation represents workers and shareholders. It's purpose for existence is defined in it's charter, and it's activities should be limited by that definition and regulated by law. It has no business becoming involved in elections beyond that of contracting to provide goods and services to the election commissions. I would prefer to make my decision as to whether or not I work for a particular corporation, or purchase it's goods and services, to be based on relevant issues like compensation, location, work environment, community involvement, environmental practices, etc, not ideology.

 

[Skyhunter]

There not? Well if there not , then who exactly runs these organizations if they are not people then?

This is an absurd argument. It makes as much sense as saying cars are people because people drive them.

Really? I thought it was about prohibiting the State governments as well as the federal government from creating laws that would infringed upon the liberties of individual citizens rather than just prohibiting the federal government from creating laws that would infringed upon the rights of the states concerning creating laws. I don't think the fourteenth amendment was very effective in accomplishing its stated goals for their were many state and local laws leading upto the end of Jim Crow in the South that prevented individuals from exercising personal liberties such as having the bible being taught in public schools , the ku klux klan having the political ability to pass state laws that prohibited private citizens from forming their own private schools in the state of Oregon, and of course blacks were not allowed to enter white owned establishments and businesses.

The North was afraid they would lose the peace. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Before that, male slaves were counted as ³/₅ths of a person for apportionment in the House. They wanted to make sure that they could get Congressional allies from the South, by making sure that the federal government could regulate the elections and ensure that black men were allowed suffrage. Which brought us the 14th Amendment.

 

[mheslep]

The 14th amendment extended the prohibitions that the Bill of Rights placed on the federal government to the state governments. Before that, "Congress shall make no law ..." meant only the US Congress, but a state government was free under the US constitution to ban speech, establish state religions (and some did).

 

[noblegas]

This is an absurd argument. It makes as much sense as saying cars are people because people drive them.

Not the same thing. Bad analogy. Corporations are composed of assemblings of people that come together for one common goal ; Cars are a compilation of tangible scraps of metals molded together to suit our desires for long range travel.

The North was afraid they would lose the peace. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Before that, male slaves were counted as ³/₅ths of a person for apportionment in the House. They wanted to make sure that they could get Congressional allies from the South, by making sure that the federal government could regulate the elections and ensure that black men were allowed suffrage. Which brought us the 14th Amendment.

I don't disagree agree with you about the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. I thought that the 14th amendment was put into place to prohibit state governments as well as federal governments from making laws that would infringed on the rights of the individual citizens, which were not very effective seeing that their are laws that infringed on the rights of individuals way after it was passed , that I already mentioned in a previous post.

 

[noblegas]

The 14th amendment extended the prohibitions that the Bill of Rights placed on the federal government to the state governments. Before that, "Congress shall make no law ..." meant only the US Congress, but a state government was free under the US constitution to ban speech, establish state religions (and some did).

Yes that's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think it depends on the group of individuals. There is no limit for how much money a national party committee may give to a national party committee or a local, state and regional committee. What do you mean a corporation is not necessary? Are you saying that it is not necessary for a group of individuals to be under the corporation banner when donating money to a political campaign or a political committee?

My problem with this amendment is that it pertains only to corporations and allows congress and state governments to regulate the activity of corporations , but it does not mention any other special interests group or aggregation of individuals. Sure the proposed 28th amendment mentions 'limited liability' or corporate entity, but it does not explicitly mention any other special interests group that may carry out the same alleged actions of a corporation.

I am unsure of the particular laws surround political parties and exactly what sort of organization they constitute legally. As far as I know any private individual or organization may only contribute a limited amount of funds to any particular campaign. The issue that prompted the court case which resulted in this amendment was corporations running their own private campaigns. As far as I know you can spend as much as you want on your own private campaign for or against any particular candidate. This then gives a number of people who compose a corporation the ability to spend freely in support or in opposition of a chosen candidate so long as the funds are those belonging to the corporation and being spent on a private campaign.

And as far as I know most organizations, including nonprofits such as churches even, fall into the category of corporation. A corporate entity is a sort of contractual arrangement. And as noted by Sky they are granted 'legal personhood'. That is to say that legally the activity of a corporation is attributed to the fictitious personality and not necessarily to the individuals who comprise the corporation. It is not treated as a group of people but as an entity all its own. THAT is one of the major issues (in my opinion) with allowing political speech for corporations.