This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/alm/ for current information.
Banning Corporate Personhood
City of Berkeley
Ordinance - Majority Approval Required
Pass: 30703 / 84.67% Yes votes ...... 5559 / 15.33% No votes
Index of all Measures
|Results as of Dec 28 11:38am, 100.00% of Precincts Reporting (107/107)|
|Information shown below: Arguments | Full Text|
Should the United States Constitution be amended to abolish the legal concept that corporations are persons that are entitled to constitutional rights, and the doctrine that the expenditure of money may be treated as speech?
League of Women Voters
|Arguments For Measure P||Arguments Against Measure P|
|The Supreme Court's decision in Buckley vs. Valeo (1976) established the concept that "money equals speech."
The Court's decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections (2010) gave corporations the same rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution as human persons.
The 5-4 Supreme Court decision specified that donating unlimited money on campaigns should be considered free speech. As a result, large corporations have undue influence over who gets elected, what laws are passed, what is in our food and water and air. Granting corporations the status of a legal "person" effectively re-writes the constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests, without requiring any of the responsibilities of personhood.
Do you think money should be considered the same as speech?
Do you think corporations are entitled to the same rights and protections as human beings, without any of the responsibilities?
Don't let our privilege and power as citizens be undermined.
Vote Yes on P to send a clear message to our representatives to pass an Amendment to the Constitution to abolish "corporate personhood."
Defend democracy. Yes on Measure P.
No arguments against Measure P were submitted.
|Full Text of Measure P|
|Should the United States Constitution be amended to abolish the legal concept that corporations are persons that are entitled to constitutional rights, and the doctrine that the expenditure of money may be treated as speech?|