A group of about 200 protesters gathered before noon today in Pioneer Courthouse Square to battle pouring rain, temperatures in the 30s, and corporate personhood.
Organized by Occupy Portland and the city’s branch of the national Move to Amend movement—whose catchphrase is “end corporate rule. legalize democracy”— the protesters were marking the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The ruling stated that corporations should be considered legal persons under the law and ought to be entitled to free speech, which helped unleash a tsunami of corporate spending on U.S. elections. Needless to say, this decision has pissed more than a few people off.
One of the pissed off is Occupy Portland’s Erin Madden.
“Corporations are not we the people and we can no longer let corporations buy our elections at the expense of our representative democracy,” Madden said to the crowd.
Move to Amend hopes to cancel out the Citizens United decision—as well as an earlier decision by the court, for those who know their history—by proposing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that declares “a corporation is not a person and can be regulated.”
While part of a larger national movement—there were actions planned for more than 140 cities across the U.S.—the Portland incarnation of the protest was organized by local members of the Alliance for Democracy and included member from the First Unitarian Church, the Raging Grannies, and what remains of Occupy Portland.
“Corporate personhood has been a critical issue to us from the very beginning in the camp,” Madden said. “And even though we no longer maintain a camp today, we are still working every day to restore democracy for the 99 percent.”
Madden was among several organizers who worked directly with Mayor Sam Adams’ office on Portland’s own anti-corporate resolution. Last week, the Portland City Council approved a city resolution stating that corporations should not have the same legal rights as actual people. Portland followed other cities across the U.S., including New York City, Los Angeles, and Portland, Maine.
“We may not have a presence in the city park, but we are certainly still working on a number of issues everyday,” Madden said.
Shortly after noon, the protest crossed the MAX line on SW 6th Avenue and gathered in front of Pioneer Courthouse.
At the courthouse steps, courthouse security blocked protesters from entering the building. Shortly after 12:30, a protester wearing a yellow rain-jacket tried to get inside. He got his wish. Courthouse security scuffled with the man momentarily before subduing him and dragging him inside.
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.
Am I the only one who thinks that the continued, seemingly increasing vagueness of what Occupy does is starting to work against them? In the beginning they could say it’s not about specifics, at that phase it was about becoming a voice too loud to be ignored. But now that people are paying attention.. they throw out terms broader and more vague then anything GWB did with turrists..
@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….
All well and good. But where were these people when Citizens United was being argued before the Supreme Court? Why no protesting before it was law?
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.
@6. Okay. Given that, what measures were taken to sway people at the Congressional level? I mean, was it just another rally in Pioneer Square that was largely ignored, or was there a more focused campaign to educate John Q. Public and elected decision makers?
Forgive me, but I don’t remember anything like that back in the day. And a year ago, apart from a few people holding signs outside of the Supreme Court (which could have easily been replaced by people with NARAL signs), I don’t remember a mass campaign either. Too bad Occupy wasn’t around then, they could have really drawn mass attention to this thing. Now it just seems like too little, too late.
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).
One sign at the rally said, “I’ll believe corporations are persons when one dies.” A speaker quoted Bill Moyers as saying, “I’ll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.” 🙂 I personally will believe corporations are persons when one bleeds. Ah, though, we all know they eat and pass waste!
@9 pretty much. But no media outlets ever mention it. Ever.