No More Corporate Personhood…in LA
Thanks to ground work by the U.S. Green Party, the wave of Occupy Wall Street empowerment and Human Rights Alert, today, Los Angeles became the first major U.S. city to vote against corporate personhood and call for a Constitutional Amendment asserting corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights and that money is not free speech. The vote was unanimous.
The action is in response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that supposedly gave corporations same 1st Amendment protections as people and allows them to spend unlimited funds on campaign finance.
Mary Beth Fielder, Move To Amend - LA founder, who spearheaded bringing the resolution to the LA City Council said, “It’s a great day forLos Angeles and it’s a great day for theUnited States of America.”
“I hope this is the vote heard around the world and that it will inspire other who want to reclaim our democracy to begin organizing in their communities. Together we can build the grassroots support we need to actually amend our constitution.”
Information about the amendment can be read at http://movetoamend.org/amendment
In the Breaking News article, “Corporations have no First Amend. Rights. Ruling invalid,” Deborah Dupré reported that Human Rights Alert challenged that corporations have First Amendment Rights, as ruled by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the rights group had proven the “corporate personhood” to be a bogus court ruling according to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response that the human rights project received.
The ruling was a ‘decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns… a stunning example of judicial activism…” Dr. Zernik had said.
In Breaking News in May, Dupré reported that Dr. Zernik evidenced the Corporation Corporate Rights ruling “cannot possibly be a valid court record.”
Dr. Zernik listed the following four reasons for the impossibility:
- It is a record dated January 21, 2010, whereas the online docket noted the issuance of a Judgment on February 22, 2010.
- It is an unsigned record, which bears a stamp certifying that it is a “true copy” of an unsigned original record.
- The stamp is signed, but not dated. Moreover, the name and authority of the person who signed the stamp (Cynthia Rapp) were not printed below the signature line. Therefore, the signature on the stamp, certifying “true copy” is of dubious validity as well.
- It has no true and valid attestation/authentication by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. Contrary to what was stated in the FOIA response letter [i], the record provided did not include true and valid attestation/authentication by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of theUnited States.”
