1/3: Resolution to End Corporate Personhood

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

Resolution to End Corporate Personhood

Consented to by the NYCGA on 1/3/2012

Consented to by the Politics & Electoral Reform Working Group on 12/29/2011

Proposed by: the Subgroup to End Corporate Personhood of the Politics & Electoral

Reform Working Group

Type: Public Statement

Contact: endcorporatepersonhoodnyc@gmail.com

A RESOLUTION TO END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

The New York City General Assembly,

Convinced that one critical threat to authentic democratic self-governance comes
from the fact that corporations have been defined as legal persons,

Declaring that persons are rightfully recognized as human beings whose
essential needs include clean air, clean water, and safe and secure food,

Deeply disturbed that the granting of Constitutional protections to corporations
has compromised, or resulted in the destruction of our communities, economy,
democracy and natural world in many ways,

Recalling that corporations are human-made legal fictions, and that human
citizens are the source of all legitimate power in any democracy,

Deeply concerned that corporations need only profit for survival, and that such
profit and survival are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of
human beings,

Having observed that the great wealth of large corporations lets them misuse the
legal system to overpower human beings and communities, thus denying The
People’s rights,

Recalling that corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution, that The
People never granted constitutional rights to corporations, but that individual
judges and courts have misguidedly done so without Our consent,

Particularly disturbed that the rollback of the legal limits to corporate spending
in elections creates an unequal playing field enabling corporations to influence
elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions,

Having seen that large corporations own most of America’s mass media and use
that media as a megaphone for their own agenda, drowning out other voices,
With conviction that defining property as people is fundamentally immoral and a
threat to real people, all other life forms, and the planet,

Be it resolved that the New York City General Assembly of Occupy Wall Street
joins the millions of citizens, grassroots organizations and local governments
across the country in calling for an Amendment to the Constitution to firmly
establish that money is not speech, that human beings, not corporations, are
persons entitled to constitutional rights, and that the rights of human beings will
never again be granted to fictitious entities or property.

We support a proposed New York City Council Resolution calling for such an
amendment and urge the members to vote YES.

We further call on other communities, movements, and jurisdictions to join with
us in this action by passing similar Resolutions.

How:
By making this resolution one of our public statements.

Why:
Corporate personhood is incompatible with democracy and individual
sovereignty. We have the opportunity to declare our will to restore constitutional
protections to human beings.

Occupy Los Angeles came to consensus on a similar resolution on November
27, 2011 (2 days before they were evicted) and another on December 5, 2011
in support of a Los Angeles City Council resolution to end corporate personhood
which passed unanimously on Dec 6, 2011.

On January 4, 2012, the New York City Council is set to vote on a similar
resolution calling on Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution
in order to reverse the 2010 Supreme Court ruling of “Citizens United vs. Federal
Electoral Commission.”

Making this public statement days before the City Council votes, and before
large-scale national actions marking the 2-year anniversary of “Citizens United”
on January 20 and 21, positions OWS as a key voice in the dialogue and creates
a powerful and resonant context that can rally more people to the movement.

We propose this resolution as one of many strategies for self-empowerment, not
as part of a political party or as an endorsement of the current political system,
but as one of many parallel efforts at curbing corporate dominion.

15 Responses to “1/3: Resolution to End Corporate Personhood”

  1. quinn

    I am against corporations being treated as citizens.

    I am not necessarily against corporations being treated as “persons” under the law, because many laws apply to them as “persons.”

    Corporations should not be able to avail themselves of the rights of citizens.

  2. Aaron

    If you’re a citizen of NYC, here’s how to help the city council resolution along:

    1. Find your councilmember by typing your address here:
    http://council.nyc.gov/html/members/members.shtml

    2. Either call them, or find their email address in this list: http://bit.ly/NYCCouncilEmails

    3. If emailing, copy the sample email here: http://bit.ly/CorpPersonEmail

    4. Customize the message, and send it off!

    5. Invite everyone you know in NYC to this Facebook event:
    http://www.facebook.com/events/189385944491341/

    The resolution is described here:
    http://nycprogressives.com/2011/12/20/progressive-caucus-sponsors-resolution-declaring-that-corporations-are-not-people/

    And can be found on page 17 of the minutes here:
    http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/View.ashx?M=M&ID=180686&GUID=C0A1A782-A73D-4DD7-98BF-A260C48F598C

  3. Cesar

    I have very mixed feelings about a formal alliance with local authorities to achieve pie in the sky. It sounds great to eliminate corporate personhood, 99.99% would agree with that, but to expect success with a government that just passed #NDAA seems wishful thinking. It could help to highlight the problem, but even more to clear the face of those who are not our true allies and to distract us from their betrayed duty.
    Councilmen show at our rallies to be detained and now they want to “petition” to Washington, give me a break! Only one council man (Barron) voted against austerity budget cuts earlier this summer, and there were spirited and massive demonstrations at the time too http://bloombergvillenow.org/
    I find pathetic that the NYCGA could not even discuss the endorsement of their proposal yesterday because it was being chased by the police. I would not dedicate too much effort to support them. What are they truly doing about the repression of peaceful demonstrations and grassroots political organizing across the nation? What about reclaiming true freedom of assembly in NYC, that is something in their power to do now.
    Our legitimacy is the only thing we have, do not give it easily.
    Occupy the City Hall!!
    Cesar

    • Eureka Springs

      Yeah, I noticed the coincidental timing of GA passage of this… on a night when a significant number or OWS NYers were demonstrating/being arrested in another action. I was both impressed GA kept working so hard to hold a meeting at all, and disturbed by the choice to make such a big decision when so many were so scattered. I couldn’t help but wonder if divide and conquer, intentionally or unintentionally worked here.

      • sumumba

        this is true…HOWEVER…if there truly was a ‘divide and conquer’ element to this by the 1% it apparently did NOT work…

  4. JACK

    How Can An, ‘Attorney’ [and simultaneously, CONTRARY To "SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE" Clause) Be a Christian Minister(or Rabbi, Imam, Etc..) via G-D Player's Like Openly-Christian-Man, BARRY LYNN versUS "HILLARY (Clinton), THE MOVIE" Pretexts, Cause Such a Problem (i.e., Citizens United Outcome, which Allows Catholics or Evangelicals To Influence and Hijack OUR NATION, not Their's via Their Jealous G_ds Stories etc.. !!!!, ????

    Fact: Under Jurisprudence Rules/Laws... That It Is PROOFenough that The "PETITIONERS" in Citizenz United Vs. Federal Election Commish" [i.e., Mr. Barry Lynn et al; Who Tried To Pass The "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" garbage In Another Federal Court, 2005 et seq) Are In CONFLICT OF [U.S.A.] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW(s)!

    Question: How Can a MINISTER, Who Is Also A Lawyer Can Truly Be Loyal To a SECULAR GOVERNMENT, Let Alone Secular-Movements?

    Suggestion: Make It ILLEGAL, In U.S.A., For Any Human, To Be Both a Lawyer/Attorney (SECULAR) & A Preacher/Minister (CHURCH); Since It is Surely a CONFLICT of CHURCH v. STATE conundrum! Note: It Was 6 U.S. Supreme Court (Christians) Who Voted [5/4] for Their Church’s Instead of THEE-PEOPLE: THEREFORE:

    Reverse “CITIZENZ UNITED v. FEC” 2010!