Sen. Mike Barrett meets with constitutents, Move To Amend and WolfPAC supporters about the We The People Act to be introduced at the State House this month. Clockwise from lower left: Elizabeth Cherniack and Jean Palmer of Lincoln, John Kelly and Carol Kelly of Bedford, Greg Laing and Joe Megerman of Waltham, Marie Roberts of Lexington, Dilla Tingley and Peter Pease of Lincoln, Sen. Barrett, Dan Melnechuk of Waltham, Bob Wallhagen of Carlisle and Gary Davis of Lincoln. The meeting took place at the Concord Public Library.
To the editor:
We the undersigned, along with residents from other towns in his district, recently met with our State Senator, Mike Barrett, to ask him to support the We the People Act being submitted to the Massachusetts legislature this month. We are concerned about the corrupting influence of massive amounts of money in elections and how human rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to human beings are being used by non-human entities like corporations in harmful ways. Sen. Barrett enthusiastically agreed at the meeting to co-sponsor the proposed bill and actively support its passage.
We also met recently with Rep. Tom Stanley in Waltham to ask him to co-sponsor the We The People Act as well. He, too, enthusiastically agreed to support the act and will do everything he can to help it pass. Rep. Stanley said he views this issue as one of the most important at this time.
The We The People Act calls on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to affirm (1) that rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are the rights of human beings only, not corporations, and (2) that Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and spending.
This act also proposes that if Congress does not pass the amendment, the Massachusetts legislature will call for an amendment convention as Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides. If a recalcitrant or dysfunctional Congress blocks reform, two-thirds of the state legislatures can petition Congress to call a convention—not for overturning or changing the Constitution, but for proposing an amendment. California, Illinois and Vermont have already passed such legislation. The threat of such a convention can force Congress to act, as it did with the 17th amendment, to elect senators by popular vote instead of by state legislatures. The results of any such convention would still require three-quarters of the states’ approval.
A growing coalition of citizen groups across the country also supports this bill. For more information on this issue, check out Movetoamend.org or VoteYesforDemocracy.org.
Please contact Sen. Mike Barrett (617-722-1572 or Mike.Barrett@masenate.gov) and Rep. Tom Stanley (617-722-2230, Thomas.Stanley@mahouse.gov) to thank them for supporting the people on this issue. Also please call, email or talk to friends and family in Massachusetts as well as across the country to tell them how important this Move to Amend is to accomplishing anything in the future for the people about any issue of import to them, their children or their grandchildren. We need to put the power to legislate back in the hands of the people and out of the power of big money.
Sincerely,
Jean Palmer, Tower Road
Gary Davis, Indian Camp Lane
Dilla Tingley, Laurel Drive
Peter Pease, Huckleberry Hill
Elizabeth Cherniack, South Great Rd
Joanna Hopkins, Linway Road
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrrel.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.
I support any effort that realistically neutralizes the corrosive effects of the Citizens United ruling on our democracy experiment, launched with the United States Constitution.
I read the letter of Jean Palmer, et al., regarding the proposed constitutional amendment to “to affirm, (1) that rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of humans only, not corporations, and (2) that Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and spending.” The first proposal would deprive corporations of the right to jury trial, indictment by grand jury, compensation for taking of property, free speech, protection against double jeopardy, unreasonable searches and seizures, equal protection of the law, and due process of law. This would affect not merely Exxon Corporation, but also the ACLU. All corporations, for-profit and non-profit, would become outlaws.
The second proposal would permit Congress and the states to effectively prohibit advertising and publications on political issues by limiting expenditures on those topics to zero, or to amounts so small as to make publicity ineffectual. In other words, limitations on political spending would repeal the First Amendment right of free speech on “political” topics (and what topics are not “political” today, given the vast scope of government?), for how can we exercise that right if we cannot join with others to spend money to support, oppose, or influence the policies of the government? Again, this would limit not only Exxon, but also the ACLU. Is that what the proponents of the amendments want?
Sincerely,
Michael R. Coppock
214 Aspen Circle
Lincoln, MA 01773
The rebuttal letter from Mr. Michael R. Coppock of January 8 in reply to the letter of January 8 letter from Jean Palmer et. al. “support we the people Act” says that the WeThePeople amendment could deprive corporations of fundamental capabilities, some of which they need to operate effectively, and prohibit all political advertising and thereby wipe out most political speech. Of course those things could happen, just as Congress could decide to demolish the Interstate Highway system.
But the likelihood that any of these things would happen is zero. Most corporate rights and privileges that enable them to operate are incorporated in Federal and State law which would not be overturned with this amendment. Mr. Coppock seems to imply that a WeThePeople amendment would require these extreme and bizarre results. Whether intended or not, that implication is simply false.
What the amendment would do is return to us, as voters, the ability to make such decisions through our elected representatives as had been done since the country’s founding. The amendment will restore the meaning of parts of the Constitution to what any reader can see was their original intent now given them by the Supreme Court.
It is unfortunate that the only way to overturn harmful decisions by the Supreme Court, in this case the fiction that corporations are people and money is equal to free speech, is by amending the Constitution, but that is the situation.