Rick Nolan calls for campaign-finance constitutional amendment

Rep. Rick Nolan
Rep. Rick Nolan

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by Rus Schultz on 02/11/2013 - 03:19 pm.

    In the end, won’t go anywhere

    Wanting to remove the idea of corporate person-hood would have a huge effect on law and precedent going back to the 1800’s, people act like this is a new thing since Citizen’s United, and it’s not. To say individuals have free speech, but a group of individuals do not seems to be counter to the right of freedom of speech and association, and would have far reaching effects. Would groups like labor unions then not have the constitutional right to protest? Or groups not have the 1st amendment right to lobby their government?

    It’s one thing to say I don’t like this freedom of speech right when it’s with a corporation or union, heck, I don’t like freedom of speech when it’s exercised by the KKK or neo-nazi’s as well, but it’s another thing to want to amend the constitution to get rid of it.

    It seems like Section 1 of this amendment would go too far interpreted as written, it would seem to say that the State of WI could have outlawed labor unions to protest in Madison last year.

  2. Submitted by brian hanf on 02/11/2013 - 04:01 pm.

    it takes away a lot of 1st amendment items

    Newspapers seem to loose 1st amendment rights, with this amendment. Unless the author is assuming that a ‘by line’ is enough to keep news corporations safe.

  3. Submitted by Steve Hoffman on 02/11/2013 - 05:38 pm.


    It bears repeating: I’ll believe a corporation is a person only after Texas executes one. As it is, they’re getting the benefits of “personhood” without any of the responsibilities.

    • Submitted by Rus Schultz on 02/11/2013 - 08:06 pm.

      They’re not?

      It would greatly benefit a corporation not to have personhood. A corporation would owe nothing in taxes then, they would have no liability, instead the owners could be sued (which would be almost all of us with 401k’s), What responsibilities additional responsibilities would you like corporations to take on?

      Example, if BP wasn’t considered a person, instead just a business like any standard one, what motivation is there for the board of directors to pay any damages? the company is practically going down in flames, why not run and let the owners get sued? You’d absolve them for most responsibility by removing that special entity as it’s created.

      Personhood for corporations was put specifically there for responsibility of liability.

    • Submitted by Tom Anderson on 02/11/2013 - 09:42 pm.

      Target and Chick-fil-a might disagree

      Seems like they had to take some responsibility in the last couple of years.

Leave a Reply