Kent Greenfield was correct to note that real people have certain inalienable rights that do not disappear if they choose to associate in a corporation [“How to fix ‘Citizens United,’ ” Washington Forum, Jan. 20]. But this does not justify the Supreme Court’s invention of additional constitutional rights for corporations that go above and beyond the individual rights of the corporation’s members or shareholders.
An individual’s constitutional rights protect shareholders and members of nonprofit corporations from government takings and guarantee due process and equal protection under the law. By granting corporations new “rights” in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court allows corporations to spend their shareholders’ money on ideas or candidates that the shareholders might not agree with.
A corporation’s main obligation is maximizing profit, which is not the same as a voter’s interest in sound public policy. That is why Common Cause has launched the Amend2012 campaign. The organization wants to make clear that corporations, which are artificial creations of law, do not have the same constitutional rights as people and therefore should not be able to spend unlimited amounts of their profits influencing our elections.
Bob Edgar, Washington
The writer is president and chief executive of Common Cause.
●
Kent Greenfield was right in saying that the damage done by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision can be mitigated by legislation — such as the Disclose Act, which the Senate rejected in 2010 — and by greater corporate accountability to shareholders. But the fundamental mistake behind the decision — the removal of the right of citizens to regulate the use of corporate money in politics — can be reversed only through a constitutional amendment.
The “corporate personhood” amendment that Mr. Greenfield dislikes is just one of many proposed constitutional fixes to the court’s mistake. Even if Mr. Greenfield disagrees with one particular approach, there’s no reason for him to dismiss the overriding need for an amendment or the growing energy behind enacting one.
Marge Baker, Washington
The writer is executive vice president of People for the American Way.
Loading...
Comments