According to this tidbit from Vtdigger.org today, some Vermont communities will have an advisory resolution in town meeting or on the ballot.

Let's hope rational thinking prevails to defend the First Amendment. Voting NO on these resolutions sends the correct message. Denying associations or corporations of any type, for-profit, non-profit, labor unions, etc., the ability to engage in political speech violates that bedrock principle that has the best hope of keeping America free.

Ideology is flawed that would deny certain Americans the freedom to speak on political issues, whether as groups or as individuals.

"On Town Meeting Day at least 50 Vermont communities will consider resolutions urging Congress to pass a resolution for a constitutional amendment banning corporate personhood. The list features some of the largest municipalities in the state, including Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Rutland, Williston, South Burlington and Winooski.

According to The Rutland Herald, 50 communities have developed some form of resolution in response to the Supreme Court Citizens United case. They include Albany, Barnet, Brattleboro, Bristol, Burlington, Calais, Charlotte, Chester, Chittenden, Craftsbury, East Montpelier, Fayston, Fletcher, Greensboro, Hardwick, Hinesburg, Jericho, Lincoln, Marlboro, Marshfield, Monkton, Montgomery, Montpelier, Moretown, Mount Holly, Norwich, Plainfield, Putney, Richmond, Ripton, Roxbury, Rutland City and Town, Sharon, Shrewsbury, South Burlington, Starksboro, Sudbury, Thetford Center, Tunbridge, Waitsfield, Walden, Waltham, Warren, Williamstown, Windsor, Winooski, Woodbury, Woodstock, Worcester, and Williston."

No Anti-Corporate Amendment to the Constitution

In Vermont we are watching an effort led by various liberal/socialist elements to amend the Constitution in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case. We have slogans such as "Money is not speech," "a corporation is not a person" and others to gin up the emotions of their followers. We see State Senators (Lyons & Campbell) leading rallies calling for a resolution supporting an Amendment to restrict free speech. [There are several versions floating around. The former link is just one.] And the usual activists, including Ben And Jerry's founder Jerry Greenfield, are beating the drum against political free speech by corporations.

I'm not an attorney, but in reading portions of the Citizen's United decision which has raised the hackles of these people who would amend the Constitution, I find this comment by Justice Scalia writing in response to Justice Stevens' dissent most relevant:

"But to return to, and summarize, my principal point, which is the conformity of today’s opinion with the original meaning of the First Amendment. The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says  otherwise. A documentary film critical of a potential Presidential candidate is core political speech, and its nature as such does not change simply because it was funded by a corporation. Nor does the character of that funding produce any reduction whatever in the “inherent worth of the speech” and “its capacity for informing the public,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978).

Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate."

Scalia has it right. To the detriment of our public discourse, the 'class warfare' element of today's deeply partisan politics paints large, for-profit corporations as society's 'enemy.' Operating on that belief, some reject capitalism as the basis of our free society and would restrict free speech by restraining corporations from exercising that right.

Americans should reject that belief and premise if they support the Constitution. We should allow and encourage political speech of all kinds, but demand transparency in who pays for it.

No Constitutional amendment is necessary or desirable to constrain free speech in nothing more than a blatant attempt to muzzle certain speakers.

Some argue that the Constitution already provides Congress a remedy for constrain the Judiciary. Whether Congress would act under Article III, Section 2 to restrict the Judiciary

[ this part of Section 2: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."] [emphasis added]

in the domain of political speech/spending is doubtful. After all, they are politicians who are financed by all sorts of 'special interests.'

Poll: Washington to blame more than Wall Street for economy | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com

Congress , even more that Presidents, deserves the reproach for spending America into deep debt. That means we, the people have ourselves to blame since we elect them. The Constitution gives only Congress the purse strings of government, and they have far too freely opened that purse to 'provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare...'

"Most Americans blame Wall Street for the nation's economic predicament — but they blame Washington more.


And in the democracy that fancies itself the capital of capitalism, more than four in 10 people describe the U.S. economic system as personally unfair to them. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend, as the Occupy Wall Street protest movement completed its first month, found that:


•When asked whom they blame more for the poor economy, 64% of Americans name the federal government and 30% say big financial institutions.


•Only 54% say the economic system is personally fair to them; 44% say it is not.


•78% say Wall Street bears a great deal or a fair amount of blame for the economy; 87% say the same about Washington."

'via Blog this'

Peter Wallison: Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers - WSJ.com

And the beat goes on... the blame game is rampant on the pages of both the NYTimes and the WSJ. Are some real leaders available who can brush aside this noise and get on with moving this country in a healthy direction?

TeamObama has failed his rabid liberal supporters and the country at the same time. We need some real leadership. Where is it? We need a groundswell of sanity, not partisan ideological talking heads.

Congress has also failed us and shown America its great need for people who truly show by their actions that they put the country first and are willing to make the tough choices that will lead to recovery. The answer is certainly not more government spending and exorbitant debt. I consider Congress the only place this can be remedied as I read the Constitution.

"There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.

Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis."

Then there is this:

"Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from."

If true, government is clearly to blame for instigating the sub-prime mess by the policies enacted by Congress and the administration. 

Public Views Congress as Top Culprit in Debt Debate, Poll Finds - NYTimes.com

While much of the media attaches the spending binge to our Presidents, Congress is the culprit. Under our Constitution, they have the responsibility to authorize spending. They have failed the country in their quest for power and reelection.

However, in the final analysis, we, the American people, have encouraged the deficit and debt binge by our entitlement mentality. It's beyond time for us to change the Washington dynamic by electing fiscal conservatives who will move the country to a sustainable future. Moreover, we must not allow the U.S. to slip into the socialist camp as Sen Sanders and too many others in Washington would lead us.

"A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977, and even more than after another political stalemate led to a shutdown of the federal government in 1995."

July 8, 2011, Cheryl Hanna: Vermont likely to foot legal bill no matter who wins | Vermont Yankee Lawsuit: Commentary

An easy-to-read legal examination of the Vermont Legislature's passage of Act 47 in the last session which "gives Vermont the authority to bill back costs associated with litigation in state or federal courts that involve an entity holding a certificate of public good."

Professor Hanna concludes: "It is my humble yet considered judgment that not only is the law unenforceable, but it is also likely unconstitutional."

Sadly, the Legislature in recent years has saddled Vermont with substantial legal fees as the Attorney General continues to lose cases at the Supreme Court. Vermonters should be alarmed that the Legislature has a penchant for passing unconstitutional laws.

I fault Legislative leadership for this sorry state of affairs. Now, one of those leaders is Vermont's Governor. When will they ever learn?

In Budget Debate, Democrats and Republicans Reassess Government's Role - NYTimes.com

The good news is that Congress finally seems to be paying sufficient attention to the impossibility of continuing to borrow more than 40% of every dollar it spends. The bad news is this will be an arduous and brutal battle between ideologies likely punctuated by, if not culminating in, the 2012 election.

   This election will likely be a referendum of the these competing ideologies with the future well-being of the country at stake. I think the 'limited government' view of necessity has the upper hand now because the status quo will lead to bankruptcy. [update 041811... S&P creating a negative outlook for U.S. debt should not be ignored]

   The class warfare symbolized by the mantras of 'tax the rich' and 'punish the less fortunate' I hope will fall on deaf ears and lead to a relalistic compromise such that all elements of our citizenry have skin in the game leading to a rational solution ... in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...'

"The battle ahead “is the big one, and goes to the very major questions about the role of government,” said G. William Hoagland, a former Republican staff director of the Senate Budget Committee. “This is going to be a very fundamental clash of ideologies.”The Democratic and Republican Parties have their own internal tensions to address as the debate goes forward in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail. But in its early stages at least, it is liberals who are on the defensive.The aging of the baby boom generation and the costs of maintaining Medicare and Social Security have put the two pillars of the social welfare system on the table for re-examination. The growing weight of the national debt has given urgency to the question of whether the government has become too big and expensive."

The whole Stevenson column is well worth the read.

A Sensible Approach to Help People Trust Their Congress

This has been making the rounds on the Web for some time now. I have received it at least a half dozen times.  These simple words resonate with millions of people because people are fed up with Congressional excess.

I know it's not this simple and passing 'a law' will not cure abuses of power and ego-driven politicians. However, it's a position statement deserving an answer from all sitting and aspiring Congressmen/women. They should be asked to defend or reject it and their reasons for their position.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

          1. Term Limits.

             12 years only, one of the possible options below.

             A. Two Six-year Senate terms

             B. Six Two-year House terms

             C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

          2.  No Tenure / No Pension.

          A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no

pay when they are out of office.

          3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social

Security.

          All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the

Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social

Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

          4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all

Americans do.

          5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.

Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

          6. Congress loses their current health care system and

participates in the same health care system as the American people.

          7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the

American people.

          8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void

effective 1/1/11.

          The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

          Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

U.S. Constitution Amendment 28

Wouldn't it be fun if we had a 28th Amendment proposed to the Constitution that read...

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

More on the Supreme Court's Decision in CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

As part of our body language when reacting to words being spoken by public speakers that we agree or disagree with, we often silently mouth words of support or dissent, shake our heads, applaud, boo, shout, etc.

Justice Samuel Alito was caught on camera appearing to mouth the words "that's not true" or "not true" when TeamObama castigated the Supreme Court's decision in CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION during the State of the Union address.

Here's what TeamObama said in the speech: ''With all due deference to the separation of powers, the court last week reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections.''

As I have stated before, a corporation, whether 'the press' or other legal entity should have substantially the same free speech rights under our Constitution as an individual because a corporation or an association is a 'person' under our law. Moreover, I believe these political contributions should be public information so that voters can know the source of funding for various political messages. Armed with that information voters can decide the value of those paid messages at the ballot box.

Some may not like the fact that corporations, groups or labor unions can spend money delivering their political messages, but our Constitution guarantees free speech, however it may be amplified or delivered.

The blog linked to above at The Economist has an interesting take on this:

"Obama claimed that last week's campaign-finance ruling by the Supreme Court "reversed a century of law".

That's a claim that is often bandied around. But it is not true, says Linda Greenhouse of the NYT:

"The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions."

Meanwhile, here's Bradley Smith on why he agrees with the court's decision:

"To truly appreciate the stakes in Citizens United, one must remember the government's legal position in the case. Implicit in its briefs but laid bare at oral argument, the government maintained that the Constitution allows the government to ban distribution of books over Amazon's Kindle; to prohibit a union from hiring a writer to author a book titled, "Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda"; and to prohibit Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a book containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office. As David Barry would say, "I am not making this up.""

Supreme Court Makes Correct Decision

The New York Times' view of the decision:

"With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding."

The Wall Street Journal's view of the decision:

"Freedom has had its best week in many years. On Tuesday, Massachusetts put a Senate check on a reckless Congress, and yesterday the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision supporting free political speech by overturning some of Congress's more intrusive limits on election spending.

In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time."

Without doubt, the gnashing of teeth has begun in earnest about the Supreme Court's politically earth-shaking decision yesterday. The 5-4 ruling upended a large number of unconstitutional restrictions on free speech by corporations, unions and other legal "persons" to speak freely and spend money espousing or castigating candidates for public office.

In 2006, here and here, on this blog I expressed the same fundamental opinion: our democracy requires free speech including the right to spend money promoting political opinions without government interference.

When all's said and done the Supreme Court is heavily influenced by politics. Liberals appoint/approve left-leaning jurists and conservatives appoint/approve more conservative leaning people when they are in power. Supreme Court decisions reflect that reality with shifts in judicial philosophy over time based on the composition of the Court.

I firmly believe that if a labor union or a corporation has the standing of 'a person' before the law, they should have the same Constitutional free speech rights as an individual, including spending money on political speech in elections. As a voter, I have a direct power at the ballot box that 'legal persons' do not have, but they should have the ability to freely express their opinions, including spending money, to promote those views. I will then make up my own mind.

If the Burlington Free Press (Gannett Corp.) has the right to endorse a political candidate under the First Amendment, then Seventh Generation, or Google or GE should have that same right as a legal "person." Whether a company is in the "news" business should not be only the determinant. News organizations have Constitutional 'free press' rights." So should all legal "persons," without government restraint. This decision affirms that fundamental Constitutional right.

Cheers for the Constitution and bravo for this Supreme Court decision!