To the editor:
Last week (Feb. 6, 2015) marked the 227th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by “Convention of the delegates of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, February 6th 1788.” Coincidentally, Massachusetts legislators took a big step toward restoring a genuine democracy in the United States by introducing the We the People Act (HD 1988, An Act for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment and Amendments Convention). The bill, introduced by state Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) and state Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord), has 62 cosponsors in the House and 19 in the Senate.
Lincoln’s Sen. Michael Barrett and Rep. Thomas Stanley have joined as cosponsors in endorsing this important bill. If the measure passes, Massachusetts will become the fourth state to call for a convention, after California, Illinois and Vermont.
The legislation calls on Congress “to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirming that a) rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons, i.e. human individuals only, and that b) Congress and the states shall place limits on political contributions and expenditures…”
Under the measure, if Congress fails to act within six months of the bill’s passage, the Massachusetts legislature will join with other states under Article V of the Constitution to petition Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. This will proceed when two-thirds of the states have applied for a convention.
A resolution will also appear on Lincoln’s Town Meeting agenda in March to join with other cities and towns across the Commonwealth to endorse this bipartisan bill. Across the political, social and economic spectrum, Massachusetts voters have said they want a democracy amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For instance, in a national poll conducted by the Washington Post in 2010, 85 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of independents said they opposed the Citizens United decision. Sixty-six percent of small businesses believe that decision is bad for business, according to the American Sustainable Business Council.
Sponsors, cosponsors, and citizens alike agree with Sen. Eldridge that “when corporate dollars flood elections, people’s voices are not only drowned out, but the policies and principles that keep families economically secure begin to erode. It is clear that the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are for people, and not corporate special interests.” He says further that “big corporate money poses an immediate threat to our democracy. The integrity of our political system is at stake. This bill sends a strong message that our democracy isn’t for sale.”
Sincerely,
Gary Davis
20R Indian Camp Lane
Chair, Lincoln Democratic Town Committee
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.
Mr. Davis’s claims must not go unanswered. As I said in my earlier letter on this topic, the proposed amendment would weaken the rights of all corporations (profit and non-profit) protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Examples are 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.
Who owns business corporations? People. Who “owns” non-profit corporations such as the Sierra Club, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood? Their members. If you shut up corporations you shut up their owners and members, who have banded together in the corporate form to petition their government more effectively than they could have as individuals.
The ACLU opposes the effort to overturn Citizens United, as shown by this statement from its Web site: “Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of ‘big money’ in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-(united)
Mr. Davis also looks forward to a constitutional convention. Such a convention would not be limited to overturning Citizens United. Every provision of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be up for grabs. Can you imagine the lobbying of the constitutional delegates from the Left, the Right, the Greens, animal rights advocates, and every other fringe group? The constitution that might emerge from such an exercise would be unrecognizable. It is a risk we should not take.
The amendment proposed by Mr. Davis is undesirable and should be opposed by all Lincoln residents.