[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 46°F  
River stage: 23.13 ft. Rising
Sunday, Apr. 20, 2014

PRESS RELEASE - Senate Candidate says Supreme Court decision on corporate contributions appalling

The following story has been submitted by a user of semissourian.com. To submit your own story to the site, click here.
Thursday, January 21, 2010

Potts for Senate 2010

www.ElectMidge.com

Contact: Midge Potts

MidgePotts@electmidge.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 21st, 2010

US Senate Candidate Says Supreme Court Decision is Appalling

Constitutional Amendment Needed to Repeal Corporate Personhood

Springfield, MO -- On Thursday January 21st, the Supreme Court of the United States decided to strike down an Iowa statute that made it illegal for corporations to donate money to politcal campaigns within the state. Midge Potts, Progressive-Green candidate for US Senate in Missouri, said that she was appalled, but not surprised by the decision.

"For over a century, the Supreme Court has operated under the assumption that corporations have the same rights as individuals," Said Potts, "Despite court precedent, any reasonable person can see that such an assumption is false, and that a corporation, made up of numerous stock holders, should not be equated to individual people." She added, "If elected to represent the people of Missouri in the US Senate, I will offer an Amendment to the Constitution that would exclude corporations from being defined as individuals who have equal rights to US Citizens."

Midge Potts, co-chair of the Progressive Party of Missouri, is the party's candidate for U.S. Senator. She and other party members are circulating petitions to get Ms. Potts and other Progressive Party candidates on the Missouri ballot this year.

###END###


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

...so would you rather these corporate entities wheel & deal with the politicians in "smoke filled back rooms", where voters never know who is funding the decisions our representatives are making?

Personally, I would rather have the corporations pay for advertising, so that their support or opposition of any policy is out in the open for all to see.

SCOTUS got it right on this one. The 1st Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Remember, corporations are made up of people....people who RUN the corporation, as well as people who WORK for the corporation. These people are all assembled together as a corporation. Congress shall make no law abridging their right to peaceably assemble to speak out against something the government is doing that harms them...petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Besides that, the politicians seem to enjoy talking bad about the corporations...it is only "fair" that the corporations are allowed to defend themselves.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Thu, Jan 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM

dixietrucker,

Those people who run and work for "the corporation" all have do have the freedom to assemble, but they should not collectively be called a "legal person". All those people do have the right to all the freedoms you listed as spelled out in the 1st Amendment. They already have the right to "free speech" as individuals already, and can speak about their corporation any time they choose.

Also, spending money political campaigns should not be equated with "free speech", because if you are paying for something, then IT IS NOT FREE!

The founding fathers never intended for corporations to supersede individual citizens.

In regard to you last sentence

politicians seem to enjoy talking bad about the corporations", I believe you are off base. Those in power do everything they can to protect corporate interest because they get tons of money to do so. I am not an ordinary "politician", and I promise I will never take money from corporations or special interests or unions or any other PAC.

-- Posted by Potts4Senate2010 on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 6:05 AM

Yet another politician against free speech, imagine that!

The first (main usage) definition of free from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

free-1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another

Your definition of free is very narrow and scary. We the people want broad and far reaching freedoms, not narrow freedoms defined by controlling politicians.

-- Posted by John in Jackson on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 7:43 AM

Also, since only "people" pay taxes, if corporations are "de-personalized" they should no longer be required to pay taxes. How would the country survive that?

-- Posted by John in Jackson on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 7:52 AM

No. The Supreme Court ruling is not appalling.

What is appalling is the politicians lack of integrity to "just say no" to the buckets of money the corporations will offer. Nowhere in the ruling does it force a politician to accept a corporate donation. Begging for cash and being elected is more important to them than doing what is right for their constituents and the country. THAT IS WHAT'S APPALLING!!

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:13 PM

John Jackson,

I agree that corporations should not pay taxes, because the don't REALLY pay them anyway. They just add their tax load on to the price of consumer goods and services.

I am for the Fair Tax for this very reason:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?p...

Actually, America's economy would immediately improved if income tax was abolished, and replaced by a system such as the Fair Tax.

If elected to the US Senate I will co-sign S.296

-- Posted by Potts4Senate2010 on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:26 PM

DTower,

I

agree with you that politicians should not take the money from corporations and other special interests including unions. Personally, I have never, and never will accept anything but individual donations.

Both Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan cannot make such a claim:

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary...

-- Posted by Potts4Senate2010 on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:29 PM

This is precisely why the founding fathers made it difficult for the Constitution to be amended, to avoid knee jerk reactions and the consequence of hastily conceived ideas to change the instrument they crafted. Unless Ms. Potts has a crystal ball I really don't think she can tell us how this new decision will impact elections; however it has always been de regueur among the liberal elite to paint corporations, or business interests in general as the evil empire. My own opinion is that the phrase "shall make no law" is pretty simple to interpret and applying it across the board is fair.

-- Posted by Lynn N. Bock on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 1:46 PM

I am not "liberal", I am Progressive... and I put corporations and unions and ALL special interests in the same boat.

Peace & Freedom,

Midge P.

-- Posted by Potts4Senate2010 on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 6:51 PM

"Also, spending money political campaigns should not be equated with "free speech", because if you are paying for something, then IT IS NOT FREE!"

This has got to be the most laughable statement I have EVER heard from a politician.

The freedoms we have were bought at a very high price. NONE of them were "free", as the many tombstones at our National Cemeteries will attest.

The 1st Amendment says NOTHING in regards to personhood being a prerequisite to having free speech or free press rights...only that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW abridging those freedoms. For example, should news corporations (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc.) be excluded from the free press rights?

The 1st Amendment also guarantees the right of the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble...or gather together in a group (i.e. organization, association, corporation, union, etc.) and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 7:17 PM

I am not an ordinary "politician", and I promise I will never take money from corporations or special interests or unions or any other PAC.

-- Posted by Potts4Senate2010 on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 6:05 AM

I am not "liberal", I am Progressive... and I put corporations and unions and ALL special interests in the same boat.

Peace & Freedom,

Midge P.

-- Posted by Potts4Senate2010 on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 6:51 PM

First great comments - and interesting forum. I've always wondered what a 'special interest' was. I am specially interested on those entities that represent ideas, accomplishments and endeavors I support. But how about those I don't. How do they become 'special interests' - well, because someone else supports them.

A huge part of running for office and staying in office, especially for US Congresspeople is getting their word out; or disputing the word their opponents present.

The crime is that the mainstream media has failed us greatly and continues to do so. They've all gone tabloid and are no longer counted upon to present the news; or challenge misrepresented news.

Because of that, candidates must have a vehicle to present and defend their point of view; and be savvy and accomplished at all outlets - social, traditional and grass root.

Kudos to the Supreme Court for deciding on the side of liberty, freedom and choice.

Potts4Senate2010, I've never heard of you. That might be my fault - whatever. It's up to you who to ask for or accept financing from whatever sources you choose, I respect that. I just hope your not one of those bazillionaires that attempt to buy the election regardless of the 'special interests'. There are several 'special interests' that are of special interest to me. If they don't support you, I'm going to wonder why.

Good luck.

-- Posted by blogbudsman on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 7:31 AM

I am not an ordinary "politician", and I promise I will never take money from corporations or special interests or unions or any other PAC.

-- Posted by Potts4Senate2010 on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 6:05 AM

I am not "liberal", I am Progressive... and I put corporations and unions and ALL special interests in the same boat.

Peace & Freedom,

Midge P.

-- Posted by Potts4Senate2010 on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 6:51 PM

First great comments - and interesting forum. I've always wondered what a 'special interest' was. I am specially interested on those entities that represent ideas, accomplishments and endeavors I support. But how about those I don't. How do they become 'special interests' - well, because someone else supports them.

A huge part of running for office and staying in office, especially for US Congresspeople is getting their word out; or disputing the word their opponents present.

The crime is that the mainstream media has failed us greatly and continues to do so. They've all gone tabloid and are no longer counted upon to present the news; or challenge misrepresented news.

Because of that, candidates must have a vehicle to present and defend their point of view; and be savvy and accomplished at all outlets - social, traditional and grass root.

Kudos to the Supreme Court for deciding on the side of liberty, freedom and choice.

Potts4Senate2010, I've never heard of you. That might be my fault - whatever. It's up to you who to ask for or accept financing from whatever sources you choose, I respect that. I just hope your not one of those bazillionaires that attempt to buy the election regardless of the 'special interests'. There are several 'special interests' that are of special interest to me. If they don't support you, I'm going to wonder why.

Good luck.

-- Posted by blogbudsman on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 7:37 AM

The Supreme Court decision gives the corporations and unions the keys to our election process. Now, if a politican doesn't do what a corporation wants, all they have to say is OK do what you want but we are going to spend $10 million or so on commercials to keep you from being re-elected. This is no more then legalized extortion. There is already too much money involved in our election process. The people we elect to represent us have to spend more time fund raising than actually doing the job we elected them for. This decision will lead to more corporate control of our government. Corporations are NOT individuals with the right to freely express their opinions. They will ALWAYS do want is good for the entity NOT the american people. Personally, I don't want a return to the days of freely dumping toxins into our water supply. There are reasons to contain the wishes of big business and the unions.

-- Posted by riregrist on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 10:14 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Related subjects