I'm against corporate personhood as much as I oppose Unions throwing money at elections.
They should both be treated the same I suppose, though neither of them represent anywhere near a majority of working Americans.

@2: The message seems pretty clear to me: Occupy wants to drastically reduce the influence of corporate wealth on our government. There's lots of different facets to that goal, but I think the overall point's pretty coherent.

The *tactics* weren't all that great to start with; the relation between squatting in a Portland park and a plutocracy seemed tenuous and devolved into a (pretty stupid, IMO) debate about the right to assemble. They've started shooting at the target, though. Now I just hope that we get 99% voter turnout....

That well-to-do old lady doesn't look like a "dirty hippy" to me. What gives?!

@4: I recall hearing vocal public protests against corporate personhood in Portland at least as far back as 2003, long before the Citizens United decision. Corporate personhood isn't new, and neither is the public opposition to it.

I hate that the ACLU doesn't get bashed more for Citizen's United.

I couldn't tell you the full extent of the efforts, especially because I wasn't directly involved with them, but one or two people I knew here back then were. It wasn't just a single rally or anything like this, but you'd have to look at the history of grassroots groups like Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, etc. There were a number of books and articles that tried to draw attention to the issue (such as Gangs of America by Ted Nace, 2003) but it almost surely fell into the "largely ignored" category. It's hard for grassroots efforts to sway people in Congress unless it's stuck into the very limited field of millions of people, like Wikipedia with SOPA, and even then it can be hard: there has to be extensive public outreach and a sustained grassroots pressure, as with Occupy.
Nace's book (and others at the time) railed against the ACLU for its efforts to protect corporations' First Amendment rights, including "political speech," but few were aware of or engaged in these issues (including most folks who send money to the ACLU, I'd guess), so it takes something like Citizens United to get people to notice.

If the Move to Amend people are successful, they'd make things WORSE. As written, the group's amendment would have several consequences that would affect more than just "evil corporations" that willing give the Cancer to people. (You can read the amendment here: http://movetoamend.org/amendment).

It does NOT exclude non-profits from its language (while NOT ALL non-profits are corporations, some non-profits ARE corporations) and could potential affect the advocacy of organizations such as churches, civil rights organizations, public schools, clinics, volunteer organizations, research institutes, and museums.

SO, members of the First Unitarian Church, and possibly the Alliance for Democracy and the Raging Grannies could be undercutting their own rights if they ever chose to seek legal recognition for their group (not that they would).



The way to address the corporate-money issue in politics is through a comprehensive and constitutional campaign finance scheme (something along the lines of Lawrence Lessig's democracy vouchers) and more disclosure laws.

This left-wing constitutional amendment talk is about as effective as the Right's talk about making fetuses "people" (i.e. a lot of talk and no action).

@9 pretty much. But no media outlets ever mention it. Ever.