<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=tanstl@aol.com href="mailto:tanstl@aol.com">David Sladky</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=undisclosed-recipients:
href="mailto:undisclosed-recipients:">undisclosed-recipients:</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 24, 2010 5:55 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> GP RELEASE Greens: 'Citizens United' ruling
will...</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial color=black size=2><BR><BR>
<DIV style="CLEAR: both"></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: helvetica,arial"><BR><BR>Sent:
Sun, Jan 24, 2010 8:38 am<BR>Subject: Re: [usgp-media] Re: Draft - GP RELEASE
Greens: 'Citizens United' ruling will...<BR><BR>
<DIV id=AOLMsgPart_2_5e8e29c4-c7e5-40ca-92bb-529d82eccdc1><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/24/2010 1:34:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, <A
href="mailto:cobbweb@greens.org">cobbweb@greens.org</A> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2>>
Many Greens are supporting Move To Amend (<A title=http://www.movetoamend.org/
href="http://www.movetoamend.org"
target=_blank>http://www.movetoamend.org</A>), which, like the Green Party,
asserts that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to
constitutional rights; that money is not speech; and that the right to vote
and have one's vote counted must be guaranteed. Move To Amend demands a
constitutional amendment enacting these principles.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I certainly support the general positions the Greens are taking on this,
and certainly oppose the concept that corporations are persons under our
constitution (and are aware of the controversy over the deceptions that went
into the court allegedly recognizing corporations as people).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One caution that I have is that, as a lawyer, having briefly read the
summary of the case, most of the majority decision, and some of the dissenting
opinion, there does not appear to be a simple remedy. My concern is given a
court decision that once again seems more driven by personal ideological biases
rather than sound legal reasoning, merely overturning the concept of corporate
personhood does not necessarily overturn the court's recent decision. (Restoring
a Supreme Court that upholds the law is the clearer solution).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The idea of a constitutional amendment related to corporate
personhood seems to be getting a fair amount of attention. Something the Greens
support for reasons far beyond this court decision. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The website cited above - movetoamend - goes far beyond this
particular approach in a way greens would support, but I wonder how difficult
and complex it would be to draft (and more importantly, then pass) a
constitutional amendment that would actually accomplish the goals it lays
out</DIV></FONT></DIV><!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_5e8e29c4-c7e5-40ca-92bb-529d82eccdc1 --></DIV></FONT><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</BODY></HTML>