Hear, hear! Let's get the corporate money out of politics. Individuals only can contribute. Which means, of course, that unions -- who aren't people either -- won't be able to buy the Democratic Party lock, stock, and barrel.

Which presidential candidate declared our courts and justices out of control? What insane vision caused the courts to give corporations the right to speak with a million voices instead of a citizen's single voice? PAC funding by partisan billionaires and corporations is taking control of elections out of the hands of voters who support candidates for their individual qualities as well as their party affiliation. McCain-Feingold started this mess. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to gather together and fix this mess.

Absolutely true. Great column, Representative McGovern and Mr. Clements!

The issue is NOT what constitutes a "person". This is the straw man argument designed to sway the uninformed. The reason that free speech is extended to all is because we a re a free country. The government does NOT have the right to step in and stifle the speech of anyone-person, corporation, or any entity. That is what Citizen's United confirmed. The hue and cry from people like McGovern and other left wing pols is that they do not like the views of some corporations. This is a blatant attempt at censorship, and would be perfectly rational in places like Cuba and China, but not in the USA.

The continuing legacy of the Bush presidencies: Roberts, Alito, Thomas. With a special shout-out to RR for Scalia. Corporations are people: Governor Mitt Romney.

'We the People" can overturn Citizens United, just like we overturned Roe v Wade. Oh wait . . . didn't happen. Never mind.

This proposal is a start but won't solve the problem. We need to get all corporate money out of public elections. Or at least limit it to $500.00 or something like that. Otherwise, we are giving special interests a loudspeaker in the public square. Maybe let the parties decide which candidates get the money - and of course, limit the amount of personal wealth that a candidate can spend. I'd even compromise on that part as long as the money was self-made and transparent as to the source.

And limit union contributions to that same amount...

So if corporations are people wouldn't that make Mitt Romney, who made much of his money destroying companies and selling the remains a particularly viscous serial killer?

If Democrats run ads against nuclear power you had better hope the nuclear industry can run ads telling you why that is a bad idea!!! Why are Democrats ALWAYS afraid of "free speech"????!?!?!

THE goal is to make money and there is no social compact in that. He, and she I guess, with THE most money wins. Money has been the new religion for years. Wake up will ya!

Would McGovern silence unions political speech, activity and spending as well? Hardly. Would McGovern silence any liberal "non-profit" that wanted to make a political statement? No. Unions as well as corporations are associations of people who share some goal in common. Freedom of association is a clear right. That the association happens to have a nominally profitable goal as opposed to another form of individual, group or societal benefit should have no bearing on restricting an institution's members from voicing any political statement, COLLECTIVELY, they prefer. People have been lamenting the amount of money spent on campaigns for ages. Obama, however, raised and spent more money than ever in history (turning down government funding and avoiding the associated restrictions). Was there something inherently "evil" in that? Nonsense. In an age where virtually anyone can research any issue or candidate from birth to death on a single computer it ludicrous to imagine any amount of speech, advertising or other political spending can overwhelm the ability of a reasonable voter to uncover enough facts to make an informed, rational, decision. McGovern simply wants to stifle speech that is antagonistic to his, liberal, agenda. How "progressive" is that?

"We the People" column is a joke. Organized labor like the SEIU also benefited from the special interest money legislation. Now that they are being outspent, they're upset and back the People's Rights Amendment. I'd be amazed if the column wasn't really sponsored (and written) by organized labor

Very misleading. The question in Citizen's United was whether the government can ban books and movies that criticize incumbent politicians. Fortunately, the SC ruled that the government may not ban such speech. It is unsurprising, but still disappointing, that Rep. McGovern thinks we should live in a country where the government can jail people (that's right - people, not corporations) for criticizing the government. Scary. Then again, liberals always favor the power of the state over the rights of people.