In Citizens United v. FEC, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion opened the door for corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to make unlimited campaign contributions to special political action committees called superPACs. The majority declared that if money is speech (Buckley v. Valeo), and speech is a protected right (First Amendment), then campaign restrictions on spending by associations of individuals (i.e. corporations) essentially denies fundamental individual rights.
This logic has not been accepted by everyone. Vermont’s independent Senator Bernie Sanders called the decision “basically insane” saying, “Nobody I knows thinks Exxon Mobile is a person”. Sanders has already proposed a constitutional amendment in the U.S. Senate, called The Saving American Democracy Amendment, to repeal the corporate personhood affirmed by the high court.
The resolutions passed by local town halls in Vermont represent a more grass roots attempt to challenge the judiciary’s interpretation of the constitution. Some legal scholars, although supportive of the movement, point to Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Madison’s plan detailed in Article V makes it extremely difficult for the “passions of the majority” to easily overturn judicial opinions and amend the constitution. Similar movements sparked by public out cry over school prayer bans (Cantwell v. Connecticut), abortion (Roe v. Wade), and flag burning (Texas v. Johnson) have yet to successfully amend the constitution.
Will the “Move to Amend” pass with at least 2/3 of the States approval at a National Convention? We have yet to see. The irony remains as to whether small scale plebiscitary democracy, from Tocqueville’s beloved town halls, will be able to restrain the power of certain associations over the rest of the populace. Are associations always helpful? ...Is the Supreme Court always right?
Rate this posting:
{[['
']]}
']]}