Last Thursday We the People of Maine, an offshoot of a national grassroots movement, showed up at the Statehouse with the mission of curtailing the influence of corporate money on American politics. They are counting on a Constitutional Convention of the States to enact an amendment to the U.S. Constitution reducing the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantees. This amendment is required because of the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 “Citizens’ United” decision affirming the right of corporations to spend freely on behalf of the party, individuals and issues they favor.

Those of us who oppose limiting free speech understand that we are not really “people” but just a bunch of persons. The People of Maine are the real people and they want the First Amendment trimmed. I don’t suppose I have to point out that fair almost rhymes with Frary (sort of) and that it’s always been my mission to speak fairly, even when discussing bores and numbskulls So it is only fair to point out that the People don’t argue against free speech in so many words. They’d get nowhere with the non-people we call voters if they did. They are demanding an amendment making it clear that corporations are not people and that money is not speech.

OK, speaking literally money is not speech. If it were every bore would be a millionaire. And anyone with the time can stand on their front steps and gas away until the cows come home and form a protest group to demand a little peace and quiet after a hard day’s grazing and chewing.

The dissemination of political speech requires money. This is known. It is indisputable. So yeah, money may not be speech. but it speaks and, yes, “grassroots movements” cost money to run.

Beedy Parker of Camden, a People organizer, told the legislators that getting signers for the his organization’s petition was “easier than selling Girl Scout cookies. ” This is not surprising. How can corporations be persons? They don’t brush their teeth; tie their shoes, yawn, urinate or do thousands of other person things.

I expect most of those 35,000 signers were shocked to hear corporations described as persons. If they had checked the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica they would have discovered that this legal doctrine was already old when the “corporation” entry was written. But who checks antique reference books? or new ones for that matter. Not your average petition signer.

It’s like this. The employees, stockholders, executives, and suppliers of Bath Iron Works and its parent are all authentic persons. So are the people of Bath and its surroundings. The health and welfare of B.I.W. is bound up with their prosperity. Maine’s congressmammals are going to push for BIW contracts regardless, but their support may fairly be rewarded and underwritten by the corporate entity.

In a perfect world the interests of the United States would automatically supercede those a few thousand residents of a corner of the United States and all would agree “let the best shipbuilder win.” This is not a perfect world.

Now let’s savor the blatantly obvious hypocrisy of this “non-partisan grassroots movement.” The Maine Legislature is being asked to join California, Illinois, New Jersey and Vermont in passing a resolution calling on Congress to authorize a Constitutional Convention. Those just happen to be the four states where the Democrats dominate the state legislatures most completely. Is any reader fool enough to assume this is coincidental?

When your candidate and party wins that[‘s a democratic success. When they fail that’s a failure of democracy. That’s the way most liberals and conservatives understand “democracy.” Liberals are convinced that they lose only because corporate money distorts the election outcomes. The hope that victory will be theirs if only the Republicans are cut off from corporate cash.

Odd as it may seem I find much merit in the We the People of Maine project. All the constitutional powers of the United States government derive from Congress and there’s a certain appeal to hearing government-loving liberals denouncing that same Congress as a gang of corrupt puppets.

Another thing that I like is the idea of overturning a Supreme Court decision by amendment. The Founder of our Republic provided a complex and difficult process for amending the Constitution. Their intent was to insure that no alteration could be made without an overpowering consensus. They understood that constitutional alteration by a simple legislative majority would lead to enduring national divisions.

An amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in Congress and three-quarters among the state legislatures adds up to potent consensus. Now we find new meanings imposed on the Constitution by five-to-four majorities and rival political groups feel no need to forge a national consensus. If they can engineer of 5-4 Supreme Court majority they are content.

Professor John Frary of Farmington, Maine is a former US Congress candidate and retired history professor, a Board Member of Maine Taxpayers United and publisher of www.fraryhomecompanion.com and can be reached at: [email protected].