From Paul W. Voegeli
Monroe
To the editor:
You recently published a letter from an officer of a group called Green County United to Amend which took issue with some points that I had previously raised regarding a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which is intended to vitiate the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the "Citizens United" case.
The United to Amend group claims that its goal is to remove "big money" from the political arena. If that is truly their goal, why doesn't their proposed amendment simply state that corporations and unions may not make political contributions or in any other way participate in the political process? Why does attaining their goal regarding "big money" require an amendment that says that corporations and unions shall no longer have any Constitutional rights? United to Amend has failed to explain this dichotomy.
The letter to which I am responding stated that the proposed amendment would "not take away any Constitutional rights of any owners of businesses or employees of businesses on our Monroe Square." No one has ever suggested that the amendment would take away the individual rights of owners or employees or corporations. However, pursuant to numerous Supreme Court decisions, the corporations themselves, separate from their owners and employees, have valuable Constitutional rights which are in addition to any rights conferred on them by state law or by their corporate charters. An amendment providing that corporations and unions would no longer have any Constitutional rights would strip them of those invaluable protections. Rights lost would include the First Amendment rights of newspaper and broadcasting corporations.
The letter to which this is a response includes the following interesting sentence: "What we have now is an oligarchy which means that our government functions to serve only the rich." Note the use of the word "only" in that sentence. If that sentence is true, then government programs such as food stamps, SSI and Medicaid must serve only the rich. That would be news to most people. If anyone has any doubts in that regard, I suggest that he or she go to Green County Human Services and ask them if the programs that they administer "serve only the rich." After the people at Human Services stop laughing, they would probably summon the men in white coats to take the questioner away for an evaluation.
Monroe
To the editor:
You recently published a letter from an officer of a group called Green County United to Amend which took issue with some points that I had previously raised regarding a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which is intended to vitiate the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the "Citizens United" case.
The United to Amend group claims that its goal is to remove "big money" from the political arena. If that is truly their goal, why doesn't their proposed amendment simply state that corporations and unions may not make political contributions or in any other way participate in the political process? Why does attaining their goal regarding "big money" require an amendment that says that corporations and unions shall no longer have any Constitutional rights? United to Amend has failed to explain this dichotomy.
The letter to which I am responding stated that the proposed amendment would "not take away any Constitutional rights of any owners of businesses or employees of businesses on our Monroe Square." No one has ever suggested that the amendment would take away the individual rights of owners or employees or corporations. However, pursuant to numerous Supreme Court decisions, the corporations themselves, separate from their owners and employees, have valuable Constitutional rights which are in addition to any rights conferred on them by state law or by their corporate charters. An amendment providing that corporations and unions would no longer have any Constitutional rights would strip them of those invaluable protections. Rights lost would include the First Amendment rights of newspaper and broadcasting corporations.
The letter to which this is a response includes the following interesting sentence: "What we have now is an oligarchy which means that our government functions to serve only the rich." Note the use of the word "only" in that sentence. If that sentence is true, then government programs such as food stamps, SSI and Medicaid must serve only the rich. That would be news to most people. If anyone has any doubts in that regard, I suggest that he or she go to Green County Human Services and ask them if the programs that they administer "serve only the rich." After the people at Human Services stop laughing, they would probably summon the men in white coats to take the questioner away for an evaluation.
