Written by Leonard R. Jaffee   

Copyright © 2014
Leonard R. Jaffee
Professor of Law Emeritus
all rights reserved

U.S. Senators Testor & Murphy & House Members McGovern, Pingree, Capuano, Cohen, Cicilline, Farre, DeFazio, and Lee have introduced a Joint Resolution proposing this federal Constitution amendment:

"Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

"Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

"Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are unalienable."

The proposed amendment bears MANY, VITAL flaws. The worst are huge over-breadth & abysmal under-breadth. The amendment could not achieve its purpose, but would destroy much of our "Bill of Rights" & hurt, gravely, the "99%" the proponents seek to protect.

PART I: Section 1

The current "We the people" cannot "ordain and establish" the constitution. It was ordained & established in 1789.

Does the amendment intend to "ordain and establish" a NEW constitution? Not a silly question: The amendment would undo many constitution-provisions that protect us from the government's oppressing, overreaching, or transgressing against us.

How will Section 1 affect the constitution's provisions that either (a) limit government prerogative respecting private interests but do NOT provide "rights" or (b) bear terms that provide rights not limited to "natural persons"?

The 1st amendment includes this:

"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...."

That language does NOT

(a) limit its compass to persons

(b) establish rights

(c) indicate entities ("natural" or other, individual or group) that may be entitled to the benefit or protection that language provides

Rather, the language does naught but limit Congress's power respecting religion, speech, and "the press."

Whatever "religion" may be or whoever or whatever may have or practice it, the 1st amendment's religion-terms prevent Congress's preferring or limiting religion or its exercise. THAT is ALL the religion terms do. They do NOT confer rights or protect "persons."

The 1st amendment's speech & press terms prohibit Congress's "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." THAT is ALL the speech & press terms do. Those terms do NOT confer "rights" or protect "persons."

So, the proposed amendment's Section 1 CANNOT alter the field of entities the 1st amendment's religion, speech, or press terms protect.

Speech is a capacity not only of individuals, but also of GROUPS. The 1st amendment's free speech terms were designed primarily to protect political speech, which, the Founders apprehended, is vital to democracy. Just so, the 1st amendment says not only that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the freedom of speech," but also that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Political speech — political ANYTHING — involves more than one individual. Very often, effective political action requires that individuals act in groups, even groups concerted in some form of organized association, even an INCORPORATED association, like an incorporated political action organization, whose corporate form minimizes members' liability to encourage their pursuit of the political objectives for which the organization formed.

One can "peaceably...assemble" not only physically (as in a parade), but also by forming an association — even an incorporated "assemblage" — to bring greater weight to bear upon the government the organized individuals seek to petition for redress of grievances.

Just so, when (in 1789) the United States was established by its constitution, its citizens formed political parties.

So also, since 1943 — long before Citizens United — Americans have formed Political Action Committees ["PACS"]. Though not corporations, PACS are formed, connected intimately with, and much administered & funded by corporations, labor unions, trade associations, and other business entities. PACS pursue interests & political positions of business entities that form, sponsor, administer, and fund them — pursue such interests & positions with concerted action, its speech, even advocacy of candidates & socioeconomic policies.

First-amendment-protected group political speech or speech-rendering/petition-asserting assembly can include group speech/assembly seeking business-advantage or benefit of existing enterprise. Our government was established to pursue the “General Welfare” of the sea of individuals that compose the governed. Welfare is an economic matter — one of acquiring & securing wealth, not just distributing it.

The franchise is a means of seeking economic welfare. One may vote for candidates, initiatives, or referenda one thinks most likely to serve one's economic interests.

Just so, the 1st amendment protects our speaking, assembling, and petitioning to promote such candidates or measures. It protects our assembling to magnify such speech & petitioning — even by forming groups, even incorporated groups — that will engage in such speech or petitioning. The 1st amendment does not limit its protection, expressly or impliedly, to informal groups rather than corporate organizations.

Wealth & economic security are not just matters of money or property, but also sources of psychic well-being. STILL, psychic well-being is ultimately ECONOMIC.

If one cannot secure the necessities of subsistence, one will suffer physical or psychic illness or die early or torturously. One acquires wealth or economic security for both physical & psychic well-being. Well-being bears economic weight to which one can attribute monetary value — the money required to obtain a certain state of well-being or, E.G., money that courts award to “remedy” pain, suffering, or psychic distress.

Citizens OUGHT to be able to form legal entities to influence elections, government, and public policy. Such grouping renders much hope of fighting the untoward & disproportionate influence of the Koch brothers & other filthy rich, pathologically greedy people who seek to control government for their own, sick, antisocial ends. Such grouping gives ordinary folks not only greater political power, but also limitation of legal liability, mightily important when the enemy is the economically/legally rapacious 1%.

Small & mid-size business-firms OUGHT to be able to affect elections, government conduct, and public policy — to better the economic positions of their middle class investors & entrepreneurs. The General Welfare — the MIDDLE class's economic welfare — was one of the three principle objects of our 1789 constitution.

If the proposed amendment's Section 1 COULD deny corporations all 1st amendment protections, it would bar from much political process many thousands of small & middle-size business-firms that represent legitimate, relatively modest socioeconomic interests of members of the middle class.

Most newspapers & news-broadcasting radio & TV stations are owned by corporate entities. If the proposed amendment's Section 1 could deny such entities 1st amendment protections, it would abridge the freedom of the press near utterly.

But the proposed amendment does NOT reflect a concern that corporations are corrupting the nation's political processes. Rather, it reflects apprehension that mega-corporations — major oil & gas companies, huge banking & investment institutions, and other such monstrous business firms — and their filthy rich managements & investors are exerting immensely disproportionate influence on elections & the operations of government.

The problem is NOT the FORM of the influence's source. The problem is the magnitude of its greed & economic power.

Suppose Citizens United held that though the 1st amendment lets corporations make direct political contributions, no firm may contribute more than $80 TOTAL to any political party, candidate, or campaign. Would Progressives & "Liberals" oppose the decision? Though mega-corporations & their managements & investors are motivated by unbridled (even evil) greed, they could not pursue their motivation by corrupting political process if they could contribute only $80 TOTAL to any candidate, party, or campaign.

Citizens United did not only free corporations to make political donations. It accorded the same freedom to labor unions.

At least ostensibly, labor unions champion interests of working stiffs & the lower & middle classes. Yet the amendment's sponsors would deny INCORPORATED labor unions 1st amendment "rights."

But Citizens United interpreted the 1st amendment's free speech provision correctly. The proposed amendment's Section 1 COULD NOT alter THAT provision's scope.

The 1st amendment FREES individuals to form corporations pursuing wealth-acquisition or economic security by means of political speech, even by influencing the voting of others & by contributing to or promoting political campaigns. The proposed amendment's terms COULD NOT shrink or alter that FREEDOM.

[Section 1 bears other flaws. But the foregoing shows enough.]

PART II: Section 3

Section 3 states: "Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association & all such other rights of the people, which rights are unalienable."

One problem is the referent of "herein." Grammar-conventions indicate the referent is Section 3. The indication implies that Section 3 provides only that Section 3 shall not limit the "rights" the 1st amendment protects or any other "such" rights "of the people." If so, Section 3 does NOTHING.

Section 3 says it does not limit the "rights" it references. It does NOT say it does anything affecting anything other than SUCH "rights." So, it does NOTHING.

Section 3 makes its object, among else, "the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association...."

"The people" cannot have a right. Rights are held by (a) individuals, (b) particular groups of particular individuals, (c) legal or informal entities (corporations, labor unions, general or limited partnerships, PACS, co-operatives, unincorporated associations.......). "The people" is the body politic. No body politic can have a right.

If "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press" is a right, it is NOT so because of the 1st amendment. Respecting speech & press, the 1st amendment prohibits Congress's enacting any abridgement. It does NOT accord a right — surely not a right of "the people." Whence, then, arise such "people's rights"?

Section 3 addresses a "freedom of religion." But it fails to reference (even implicitly) the 1st amendment's prohibition of Congress's enacting a law "respecting an establishment of religion."

Put aside, for argument's sake, the matter that the 1st amendment's anti-establishment terms do NOT create a right. Suppose (for argument's sake) they create a "right" of not suffering some effect of a law respecting an establishment of religion. Then one must ask: Is such anti-establishment "right" one of "such other rights of the people, which rights are unalienable"? If so, whence arise such "rights"?

Another trouble is the clause "which rights are inalienable." The clause is preceded by a comma set at the close of the phrase "and all such other rights of the people," the antecedent of which is an asserted set of "the people's rights" that are not "other" rights, but "rights" asserted as if clearly extant per some pre-existing source, which may not be a universe of the "inalienable," but some (written) law.

Does the clause "which rights are inalienable" modify the entirety of the rest of Section 3, so that the expressly enumerated "the people's rights" are ONLY "rights" occurring in a universe of inalienable "rights"? Where is that universe?

NO rights are "inalienable" — ever, anyhow. Rights are creatures of law. No right can occur, except provided by enforced law — even if the "law" is only an informal, oral, 2-party agreement that WILL be enforced by violence of the chief of an utterly isolated, 18-member band of primitive people unknown by other humans, of which band the agreeing parties are members.

All supposed "inalienable rights" are supposed "natural rights." Rights do not exist in nature. Name a right held by a mountain goat, cobra, river, or forest — OR a new-borne human raised solely by wolves.

Proper grammar holds that in the clause "which rights are inalienable" the term "which" functions as the NON-restrictive relative pronoun. Suspend fitting disbelief owed to the grave linguistic incompetence of Section 3 & the rest of the proposed amendment. Assume the amendment's drafter MEANT the non-restrictive.

Then the "which" clause references only "all such other rights" that are NOT "the people's rights" of "freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, [and] freedom of association." So, THOSE enumerated "people's rights" must arise NOT from some universe of inalienable rights, but from law. But WHICH law? The law CANNOT be the 1st amendment — for reasons set above.

The language "the people's rights" is troublous not just vis-a-vis the 1st amendment, but also, similarly, vis-a-vis other provisions of the "Bill of Rights."

Example:

The 3rd amendment provides:

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

A house's owner can be a corporation. Do the proposed amendment's Sections 1 & 3 intend to repeal or alter materially the 3rd amendment?

Section 3 says "Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the...freedom of speech...." If Section 3's "freedom of speech" is not some impossible "inalienable right," but the freedom of speech provided by the 1st amendment, then the proposed amendment CANNOT overturn Citizens United.

The 1st amendment does NOT accord a "right" of free speech. It provides only that Congress may not abridge the freedom of speech. The provision may effect a privilege or immunity, but not a right.

Incorporated groups can speak. They have spoken under 1st amendment protection since the founding of our constitution. If Section 3 does not limit "freedom of speech" — 1st amendment "freedom of speech" — the proposed amendment does not limit freedom of speech of corporations.

[Section 3 bears other flaws. But the foregoing shows enough.]

PART III: Section 2

Section 2 says:

"The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution."

SUB-PART A: Underbreadth

The term "or other corporate entities" (a) makes "limited liability companies" mean "corporate limited liability companies" & (b) limits Section 2's scope to incorporated entities. So, Section 2 could not apply to any of a near-infinite field of NON-incorporated NON-"natural-person" entities.

Such unincorporated-entity-field includes (but is not limited to) partnerships, unincorporated limited liability companies, unincorporated co-operatives, unincorporated joint-stock companies, unincorporated unions, and PACS. Incorporated entities can be partnership-members, managers or investors of unincorporated limited liability companies, members or managers of unincorporated co-operatives or joint-stock companies, administrators, sponsors, and financiers of PACS.

Section 2 seeks to apply to "corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state." A vital Progressive concern is foreign or multinational corporate influence of U.S. political processes. But Section 2's terms could NOT preclude a foreign or multinational corporation's avoiding Section 2's limit by being a member of an unincorporated domestic entity.

Example:

Suppose a not-for-profit, non-incorporated association receives investment-funding from corporate business entities seeking to impair interests of the working class, the middle class, and the poor. The association's members are 15,000 very rich individuals & several huge, powerful domestic, multinational, and foreign corporations. The association gives money to candidates & office-holders who press government measures — anti-"99%" measures — the association's members & corporate investors desire.

Neither the amendment's Section 2 nor its Section 1 could deny the association “rights [or freedoms] protected by the Constitution” — in this case, free speech & rights of assembly & of petitioning government for redress of grievance. The association is not a corporate entity.

[Section 2 suffers many other underbreadth troubles. But this Sub-Part will not illumine more. Since many Section 2 overbreadth & overbreadth troubles overlap, the next Sub-Part will expose sundry other underbreadth troubles.]

SUB-PART B: Overbreadth

Surely, the amendment's motive is to overturn Citizens United. THAT object requires only a very narrow regulation of business-associations' political contributions.

Like the amendment's Sections 1 & 3, Section 2 could not attain that object, but would destroy many utile protections the constitution accords private corporations & other artificial entities. That effect would harm, grievously, the middle-&-lower-class masses the amendment's sponsors wish to protect.

The constitution accords associations sundry rights, protections, and freedoms other than freedoms of speech & press & rights of assembly & of petitioning government for redress of grievance. Among such other rights, protections, and freedoms are:

* 1st amendment religious freedom

* 4th amendment protections

* 5th & 6th amendment & parallel 14th amendment protections respecting criminal prosecution

* 7th amendment right of jury trial

* due process, equal protection, and anti-takings/just-compensation guarantees of the 5th & 14th amendments

Passage (1): Religious Freedom

Suppose an incorporated religious sect. It supports its sectarian activities with profit-making operations & with interest-bearing investments it makes in its members' small businesses. The profits & interest are invested in evangelical efforts. The evangelical efforts yield further profits.

The sect was established partly for the purpose of ministering to the sect's existing members & converting others into adoption of the sect's faith & inducing them to join the sect. But the sect was established also to earn income & to promote the for-profit businesses of its entrepreneurial members. So, its for-profit activities are not merely incidental to its religious design.

The sect lobbies government & contributes to campaigns of politicians who pursue policies that foster the sect's interests, even its for-profit activities. The sect advertises & publishes its belief that the Founders conceived the United States a Christian nation & intended that its public schools preach the Christian faith. Its members speak that message prolifically.

The 1st amendment's "freedom of religion" provision does not apply only to individual humans. It apples to religious sects, their memberships, their houses of worship, their organizations (like the Roman Catholic "Church" & its priests, nuns, monks, parishioners.......).

Religious organizations adopt corporate structure to secure limited liability to protect resources & avoid legal "persecution" (or costs of undue litigation) & also to be able to consolidate resources & maximize efficiency of resource acquisition/disposition, to aid the sect's & its organization's survival & wield greater influence. Our constitution's Founders expected so.

The United States Catholic Conference & the Presbyterian Church of the United States are corporations. So are most American Christian sects, large & small. The religious corporation was an entity well known in the England of 1620-1776, in the English Colonies of the same period, and in Post Revolutionary America & the America of 1787, when the Founders wrote & signed our constitution.

Whatever may be the contrary claims of U.S. religious corporations, they make profits, many ways, with business investments & real property holdings they lease-out for money-rent, and with other ventures. Most religious organizations lobby government, donate to politicians' war chests, engage in politicking during political campaigns & respecting initiatives & referenda........to advance their religious causes & their economic interests & those of their members or followers.

But, also, many such corporations do invaluable eleemosynary work. They operate charitable hospitals, shelter & feed the homeless.......

Some religious corporations — like the United States Catholic Conference & the Southern Baptist Convention — are mightily powerful & influence the nation's political processes immensely. Many press conservative, even ultra-conservative policies that — sometimes designedly, sometimes adventitiously — support the interests of for-profit mega-corporations.

Section 2 could not cause religious corporations direct denial of religious freedom. But it WOULD deny them several protections necessary to full realization of the religious freedom the Founders intended — protections (like the 4th amendment privacy-guaranty & several 5th & 14th amendment protections) available only to a "person" or "people." The denial would strike both the purely charitable, small, and humble & the giant, monstrously powerful, and greedy.

Now suppose a NON-incorporated religious sect. Though its core & principal aim is religious, it supports its sectarian activities with profit-making operations & with interest-bearing investments it makes in its members' small businesses. The profits & interest are invested in evangelical efforts. The evangelical efforts yield further profits.

The sect lobbies government & contributes to campaigns of politicians who pursue policies that foster the sect's interests, even its for-profit activities. The sect advertises & publishes its belief that the Founders conceived our country a Christian nation & intended that its public schools preach the Christian faith. Its members speak that message prolifically.

Neither Section 2 nor Section 1 would deny this sect ANY constitutional right, freedom, or protection — even if it were big & powerful as BP Petroleum, Bank of America, General Electric, and Monsanto and contributed to political parties, candidates, and campaigns thrice what those corporations contribute. The sect is not a corporate entity, but a host of "natural persons."

Passage (2): 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th Amendments

The 5th amendment's double jeopardy clause is not limited to cases involving possible capital or other corporal punishment. And the clause applies to prosecutions of corporations.

The 5th amendment does not privilege a corporation's document-custodian against being forced to produce the entity's subpoenaed records. STILL, as a legal entity can testify against itself through its officer or other high management employee, if an officer or high manager makes a statement after prosecution begins, the statement is inadmissible against THE ENTITY.

The due process clauses (5th & 14th amendments) apply to prosecutions — and civil trials — of corporations.

The 6th amendment says:

"In ALL criminal prosecutions, THE ACCUSED shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..., and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." [My emphases.]

The term “all” (“all criminal prosecutions”) makes the amendment apply to every kind of prosecution, SO to ANY kind of defendant. The term “the accused” (not “person”) reinforces such observation.

The terms “him” & "his" do not limit “the accused” to a human, just as they do not limit “the accused” to a male human: Even in 1789 & before, American criminal law involved prosecuted women and CORPORATIONS. Colonial & post-colonial 18th century America prosecuted corporations for criminal “nonfeasance” (failing to do a state-imposed public duty).

So, the 6th amendment protects corporate entities, not just humans.

The 7th amendment says:

"In Suits at common law, ..., the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be...re-examined...[other] than according to the rules of the common law."

That language does not supply rights to persons. Rather, it guarantees common-law-jury-trial process to ALL litigants, even corporations.

The 4th amendment provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The clause "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" does not identify the kind(s) of entity the clause protects. So, the beneficiary-universe includes corporations. The term "things to be seized" allows that the "things" can be a corporate entity's.

So, courts have held that the 4th amendment protects a corporation from random inspection of its premises.

Corporations are entitled to (5th & 14th amendment) equal protection of the law.

The 5th amendment provides: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Those terms protect “private property” — NOT just private property of individuals.

Section 2 could not deny corporations the benefits the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th amendments accord NOT to a "person," "citizen," or "people," but to an “accused” or civil litigant or owner whose property is subjected to a taking, eminent domain, or warrantless search. But it would deny corporations the benefits those amendments give a "person," a "citizen," or "people."

OUGHT we deny corporations ANY benefits those amendments accord?

Do we want to be a nation that confiscates, arbitrarily, the property of private enterprise?

Do we want to deny entrepreneurs & investors due process & other protections essential to fairness & “ordered liberty”?

Do we want to deny entrepreneurs & investors fair trial process, fair investigative process, and fair treatment of privacy interests?

Do we want to deny corporate entities the protections we accord other private associations — though the former pursue economic interests EVERYONE shares?

Suppose a for-profit corporation NOT publicly held. All 18 shareholders are engaged actively in the conducting the firm's business.

The firm operates only in one, mid-size city. It distributes hardware. The shareholders are also the firm's officers, managers, accountant, buyers, sales-staff, customer-service employees, and delivery-personnel.

The firm's average annual gross profit is $3 million & net profit $1.8 million. The shareholders' average annual salary is $68,000. All dividends are distributed as pay-bonuses.

The firm does not contribute to political campaigns, promote candidates, or lobby legislators, executive officials, or government agencies. Some shareholders donate to political campaigns & causes or petition government — but only as individuals. The shareholder average annual political contribution is $76; some shareholders do not contribute to any campaign or cause.

Such corporations are common. They do not threaten the integrity of our democracy or diminish the virtue of anyone's voting rights.

Together with the proposed amendment's Section 1, Section 2 would deny every such entity most 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th amendment protections & rights.

Yet, the amendment would NOT deny ANY right or protection to partnerships, unincorporated limited liability companies, unincorporated co-operatives, unincorporated joint-stock companies, unincorporated unions, PACS, or thoroughly informal, non-entity associations (for-profit or not) — even where such organization's members, managers, investors, sponsors, financiers, or administrators are domestic, foreign, or multi-national mega-corporations.

Suppose individuals form a NON-incorporated, NON-entity association to conduct an enterprise. A federal prosecutor is convinced the enterprise is criminal. He prosecutes THE ASSOCIATION. The association, ITSELF, not just each individual member, may hold the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment protections & rights a corporation holds respecting criminal prosecution.

Such association can have standing to sue not just for its members, but for itself. Such association can be sued.

If such association files a civil suit or is a defendant of a civil action, it will be entitled to the civil litigation rights & protections the constitution accords corporations.

Such association (ITSELF, not just its members) can suffer criminal prosecution. If such association is prosecuted, it will be entitled to the criminal-prosecution-related rights & protections the constitution accords corporations.

Such association can hold property. Such association can be entitled to 4th amendment protections, 5th & 14th amendment due process & equal protection, and 5th & 14th amendment just-compensation entitlement & anti-taking protection. If such association's property suffers either adverse legal action (E.G., criminal-law confiscation or judgment-lien) or extra-legal harm, THE ASSOCIATION, itself, may seek judicial relief.

Now suppose such association formed by 3 working-class folks impoverished by the economic crash of 2008. Unemployed for 2 years, they joined together to do internet-marketing of products they obtained “on consignment” — products they believed bore merit.

In 3 months, the association realized $16,200 ($1,800 per month per member). Its marketing consisted merely of repeating the products-manufacturers' claims. The claims were false.

A federal prosecutor alleges the association perpetrated 98 wire frauds that violated 18 US Code § 1343, which, together with 18 US Code § 3571, provides — for EACH wire fraud — a maximum fine of (a) $500,000 OR (b) twice the association's gross gain OR (c) the gross loss of the victim.

If convicted, the association could suffer a $49 million fine. The court could rule that all 3 members are liable for the association's fine, since all 3 controlled, equally, the association's conduct.

The proposed amendment's Section 2 would NOT deny the association 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment protections or rights. The association is not a corporate entity.

But suppose the association WERE incorporated. Section 2 WOULD deny the association most of those protections & rights.

The corporation would be tried & punished by a kangaroo court. Because the firm is non-publically-held & bears partnership-like structure, the prosecutor might "pierce the corporate veil" & charge that the innocent, faultlessly unemployed, impoverished, working-class members owe the fine. Since they could not pay, each could suffer a sentence of up to 960 years — up to 20 years per violation.

Now suppose a non-incorporated association that created & runs a free school & free hospital. The membership sympathizes with policies & endeavors of certain business corporations; it believes such policies & endeavors serve the “right” human welfare the “right” way. So, the association gives money to politicians who would have government facilitate such corporations' enterprises.

Section 2 could NOT deny the association constitutional rights, freedoms, or protections. Though its political donations may promote Big-Business, it is not a corporate entity.

But suppose the association WERE incorporated, even an incorporated labor union. Per Sections 2 & 1, it would lack most constitutional protections, freedoms, and rights. It could be prosecuted in a kangaroo court.

The proposed amendment bears other flaws & threats. But this text has shown you enough.

We need that the proposed amendment NOT be passed. We need, instead, a constitution-amendment that will do no more or less than bar ALL "persons" — human, corporate, or other — from using large sums of money to influence political process corruptly, disproportionately, or for purpose hostile to the General Welfare.

The problem is NOT the FORM of the influence's source — corporate, individual, non-incorporated association....... The problem is its motive & the magnitude of its economic power.

Tell your Senators & House-Member to oppose the proposed amendment.