People, not corporations, have rights

I am incensed at the thought of the Clean Elections Act being questioned in recent weeks. This act is a matter of Maine pride, especially since so many states do not enforce clean elections.

Independents, Greens, Republicans and Democrats should all be equally incensed at the recent actions by non-Maine groups to attempt to crush our Maine laws.

For more than a decade, Maine has led our nation with rules that equalize how campaigns are run, how campaign money is spent and how candidates run their elections. "Clean Election candidate" has been a welcome phrase during elections.

Will Maine people accept the recent arguments that corporations deserve First Amendment rights? Please. Rights are for people, not for corporations.

As voters, we deserve the respect and the right to make our decisions based on real arguments, not on who spent the most for an ad, or what company supported a candidate.

I value my right to vote. Corporations, advertisers and big business don't have that right and I, for one, do not intend to let them have that voice.

Lisa Ward, Lisbon Falls

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"Rights are for people, not

"Rights are for people, not corporations"
And, corporations are run by and are made up of..........? The missing word wouldn't be people, would it?

RONALD RIML's picture

Yet the 'Rights' those Corporations claim are.....

Separate and above those of the people.

And when the Corporations commit criminal acts - those 'People' are not criminally sanctioned... Neato, eh!

 's picture

you just don't get it

Voisine, exactly what has President Obama done to improve the economy. Be specific. You speak

For example, passing the Stimulus Package kept unemployment below 8% putting more people to work. More people are unemployed after that past. Okay, his tax policies will lower taxes. Damn, taxes are going up next year. Okay, he got health care. No, we have to pay for it for 4 years before we see benefits. He'll be out of office by the time we see an impact.

I have to admit that the President has done an "Exceptional Job" of more the country close to a socialist state. He tried and thankfully failed to nationalize health care. He successfully took over an auto industry. He successfully transferred the ownership of another auto industry from the bond holders to the unions. He has successful raised taxes to transfer the wealth of some to others. So, is socialism is what you want, then the President is doing an "Exceptional Job"

 's picture

question?

Tron, will taxes be higher, lower or the same next year?

 's picture

he is letting it happen

Tron, President Obama is not stopping from happening. Also, taxes will be going up to pay for the health care fiasco that was past.

 's picture

you don't know that

Tron, you don't know my situation. How can you claim it will not affect me?

By the way, the tax increase will affect you.

 's picture

off in left field

Voisine, I'm afraid you are off in left field(pun intended). That definition is closer you. You are the one who said President Obama is doing an "Exceptional Job". Unemployment hovering at 10%, tripling deficits, tax increases on the horizon. Sorry, but you are the one who cannot see the evidence right in front of you.

What is wrong with America are the uninformed of both parties.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Good post, ST

Good post, ST

 's picture

doesn't sound right

Voisine, that definition sounds more like a liberal than a Republican, but thanks for the laugh.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Voisy writes, "If you had any

Voisy writes, "If you had any ability to think, you wouldn't be an ignorant Republican voting against fairness for the majority of Americans".
oBAMa's in the White House, the democrats are in control of both the House and the Senate. Aren't they giving us fairness for the majority of Americans now? Are you suggesting they're not giving us our "fairness"? Which is it? It doesn't go both ways.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Ahhhh, the voice of reason.

Ahhhh, the voice of reason.

 's picture

foreign

The decision also threw wide open the ability of foreign corporations to influence American elections.

 's picture

also allows

Voisine, that ruling you dislike also gives the unions the ability to advertise. It cuts both ways.

Heck, unions have done more to destroy businesses in this country than Republicans ever could do.

Steve Bulger's picture

Agreed...with a proviso

Ms. Ward, your assertion that only "people" should be allowed to contribute to the campaign of their preferred candidate is acceptable...only if that restriction also applies to other entities such as political action committees, grass-roots organizations of any stripe or color, non-US citizens, lobbyists and special interest groups, and (especially) labor unions. If contributions were limited only to REGISTERED voters with a ceiling of, say, $5000 per individual and a requirement for documentation of those contributions, we would likely see an end to the constant, negative campaign advertisements from even the most honorable office-seekers. They might actually be forced to spend their campaign dollars addressing the issues affecting the voting public rather than slamming the candidates' personalities, physical appearances, marital histories, imbibement tendencies and any other character flaws that usually have nothing to do with the candidates' ability to perform (which would actually be refreshing).
So if you want to prohibit corporations from making political contributions, be prepared to do the same to all other "non-person" entities.

GARY SAVARD's picture

Lisa, why then are unions

Lisa, why then are unions allowed to piss away hard earned membership dues in support of candidates that lean to their way of doing business? Don't both sides have "equal rights"? My problem with the clean election law is that no matter how hard privately funded candidates work for funding, we the people keep dishing out matching funds to the candidates that chose "clean", regardless of whether they have a legitimate shot at winning or not. Some changes need to be made to this law.

 's picture

Insane

Chief Justice Marshall, in the Dartmoth decision wrote that corporations are a accumulation of contracts not people. People have inalienable rights precisely because we are people. Corporations are not people. They have no civil rights.
What's insane is the idea that there are two sides. Employees share many of the interests with the corporations they work for.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...