Anti-Corporate Personhood Resolutions Gaining Steam
The influence of big corporations on our elections and our policies sits at a staggeringly high level. More and more Americans are disillusioned with our government, and more and more of them are realizing that corporate influence has a lot to do with their displeasure. As a result, there have been repeated calls for reform of how corporations can contribute to our elections.
While the United States Congress is ultimately the body that needs to act to curb the influence of corporations in this country, many municipalities have passed or voted on resolutions to clearly state that they oppose the idea of corporate personhood. While the money that corporations gives in support of candidates is the ultimate issue, corporate personhood is the entity that allows them to give that money. Under current law, corporations hold the same rights as human citizens in this country, and money is considered speech.
Los Angeles is one of the most recent municipalities to pass such a resolution. The resolution both denounced the idea of corporate personhood, and the idea that money equals speech. The language was based on a similar resolution crafted by the group Move to Amend. Move to Amend hopes to get more cities to take up their proposed amendment in order to place pressure on the U.S. Congress to move forward with ending corporate personhood.
“Our plan is to build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” said Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of LA Move to Amend. “The American people are behind us on this and these campaigns help our federal representatives see that we mean business. Our very democracy is at stake. Our goal is for 50 towns and cities to put Move to Amend’s resolution on the ballot for the Presidential election in November, 2012.”
While these resolutions are largely symbolic, the willingness of many cities and towns to vote them through can send a message to those in Congress that their constituents will hold them accountable if they continue to serve special interests. Those in Congress are likely afraid of losing the donations from their wealthy donors if they act on a constitutional amendment of this kind, but if their constituents won’t vote for them, no amount of money can help them keep their jobs.
