We the People, Not We the Corporations

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

             ~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010

Announcements

Stampede to Amend: Fund "The Changemaker"!

June 5, 2012

The Move to Amend coalition and Ben Cohen (of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream fame) and are teaming up to launch this exciting project to reach the masses about the movement to amend the Constitution to abolish corporate personhood -- with your help!

Help us fund the construction of a giant machine/vehicle that will both serve as a public art spectacle, information center and money stamping machine where people can insert their dollar bills and receive them back imprinted with messages of "Corporations Aren't People. Money Isn't Speech." and "Not to Be Used for Bribing Politicians." and "The System Isn't Broken, It's Fixed."

After 'Citizens United,' is Constitutional Amendment Needed?

May 26, 2012

Maryland lawmaker Jamie Raskin says proposals are way to plant a ‘flag in the sand’

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling in 2010, many Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups have proposed constitutional amendments to overturn the controversial decision — or attempt to curb its impact. But not everyone who disagrees with the decision thinks that’s the right approach to reducing corporate influence in politics.

Opponents of the decision — which held that unlimited expenditures by corporations to independently advocate for or against federal candidates did not pose a threat of corrupting politicians — gathered at a forum Tuesday in Washington, D.C. 

View all National Announcements »