it CANNOT whether at the city state or national level be any more coopted or corrupted than it is right now and people like mcgovern and that harradanielle nancy pelosi are no way part of the solution to fix whats so blatently and obviously wrong. good piece jeff. ma

This doesn't surprise me, these people are socialists hiding in the democratic party, Pelosi on the other hand is just plain nuts. http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/socialist-party-of-america-releases-the-names-of-70-democrat-members-of-congress-who-are-members-of-their-caucus/

This is a radical step, which, even if it were signed into law, would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Don't worry Mr. Jacoby, McGovern's proposal has about as much chance of passing as universal health care coverage. Our freedoms are safe.

The desire of the Ivy-educated liberal elite to "nudge" us in a "progressive" direction has been thwarted by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, gut the Constitution so that we can realize the liberal utopia.

Individuals who own or work for or hold allegiance to corporations will still have all the freedom in the world to speak-out individually. Including the right to express their views about how much they would want to limit the "rights" of corporations under this very good, very American law.

The problem is not one of free speech. The problem is the vast amounts of money that corporations are using to influence elections.

Only in MA

Just who is Mr. Jacoby writing for? First of all the Constitution was sometimes wrong(slaves being 1/5 of a person) or left out important segments of our society. Civil rights, women's right to vote, protection of voting for all, etc. Even the "Bill of Rights" were amendments to the Constitution and not part of the original document. Mr. Jacoby revises history and also shows sparse knowledge of the development of our Constitutional Law. His scorn today for Mr. McGovern as one person expressing his views actually turns Mr. Jacoby's criticism on its head, defeating his own argument. From the single thoughts of this Representative, although Mr. McGovern corrected himself, Mr. Jacoby moved to making it a single opposition entity, a faceless, lifeless mass. Just as he hides his banner behind some large grouping, he now parades out another for scorn not as a single voice but as a "personhood" lump. He is obviously looking to weaken an entire block of people in one fell swoop. The effect is to destroy individualism not enhance it, something he claims to support, By making groupings of people thinking as one unit he hopes to fatten targets or bolster favorites. So where will our new ideas come from in Mr. Jacoby's world? He thinks they are a better product coming from "group think." He seems to believe that individual thoughts that do not belong to some powerful entity should be eliminated and consequently ideas that might help the nation would be lost. This is not what the framers of our original document had in mind and being human wrote an imperfect document. They actually knew this and said so. They gave the Executive, Congress, and State Governments the powers to fashion or redress laws and to amend the Constitution as needed. Individuals like Mr. Jacoby want to give up their individually protected rights to some object, corporations, that do not possess a brain, a heart, or any of the other organs that make up individuals in a society. Corporations are indeed a PRODUCT of individuals but they are decidedly not individuals. The first freedom is freedom from harm. Mr. Jacoby's view puts that freedom in jeopardy for each one of us by ascribing people's rights to corporations increasing their power to dictate the rules of society. This is blatantly dangerous.

For-profit corporations and wealthy individuals have corrupted the political system with vast amounts of cash. If a constitutional amendment is the only method we have of repairing this inequity, we should pass one. Now.

It's a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court cannot strike that down.

Like many liberals today, they can not accept the fact that they can be wrong. I am amazed at the brilliants of the people who crafted our constitution to form the type of government we have today. It does have flaws but if you look at the world, there is not a better place to live and raise your kids. McGovern is off course wrong. If he can attack corporations on their political ads. I can do the same for all unions. As we know they tend to be in the camp of the Democrats.

Always so well stated Mr. Jacoby: conclusions piled upon conclusions, to obscure the lack of substantiation. If corporations have the same extent of constitutional rights as persons, can they be drafted into the armed services, put to death, held in jail on contempt, put under house arrest, obtain gun permits and purchase weapons, marry corporations (of the opposition sex only, of course), vote in federal elections, run for federal office, be appointed a federal judge? No? Well why the hell not?

Funny how so many seem to forget that the campaign finance law that was struck down, also limited the ability of unions to spend on campaigns and not just corporations. In both cases, neither corporations nor unions should be able to spend unlimited funds on elections. Corporations and unions are not people. They may be made up of people, but the people making them up do not all agree, so the best solution, only real people, not artificially created persons for legal purposes should be able to contribute.

Along with others here, I have to say Jacoby missed the whole point, which is the money. We all know government as it is today, can be bought by the pound. Also, how is it the constitution is elevated to the staus of a religious icon? It is a 218 year old peice of paper formulated for the times it was written and demands constant amendment and/or changes.

"Like many [other nuts] on the [right], [jacoby] has gone batty on the subject of " protecting corporat[ions]."

Once you hang yourself out on a limb on a limb on what you believe you set up a straw man. No one is saying this is not a great country to live in but it only improves with needed changes in the law and people's attitudes. You have yourself so mired in some other century your children will not be able to live in a more progressive world. Of course if you are a diehard reactionary the blinders are on and think Mr. Jacoby, a Heritage Foundation mouthpiece, actually knows what he is talking about or even has your interest in mind. In short, he doesn't.

Of course corporations aren't truly "people" in the sense that they can't vote, marry, etc. But if they are denied all Constitutional protections, then there will effectively be no more freedom of the press from governmental interference. Do we want to live in a country where journalists and authors can be told by the government not to publish articles critical of government policy, or where, say, the N.Y. Times could be prevented from publishing an expose of governmental misconduct? The legal fiction that gives corporations the status of "person" enables an individual to sue that corporation as if it is a person, rather than having to sue the shareholders, which would be cumbersome, to say the least. Yes, corporations have a lot of money and they use it to their benefit--so do the individuals who make up the "1%." I think that the powerful corporate interests would still find ways to influence government, even if corporations are not legal "persons." The money would still be there, just in a different set of pockets.

pnntfvr wrote: The problem is not one of free speech. The problem is the vast amounts of money that corporations are using to influence elections. ****** But enough about the New York Time, Boston Globe, CBS, NBC, ABC, Comcast, AOL . . . etc. etc.

McGovern and Pelosi are radical leftists who would prefer whim and preference to the Constitution. Out-of the mainstream and destined for the political trash heap? Oh yeah. Just like Massachusetts and California. Perhaps two, of only eight states, who'll soon be voting for Obama.

Liberals are forever lamenting that money spent in exercising free speech somehow "corrupts".....well something. And the proof of that assertion is found....where? We grow up inundated with advertisements of all sorts and how many of us learn to either tune them out or to listen to them skeptically? Liberals assume the masses are ignorant but they can't point to a single campaign for either a candidate or a product where advertising some point of view or product had an decisive impact on any significant portion of the population. Few corporations are going to spend much money, very often, on overtly political matters (but for legislation likely to impact their business). Why? Certainly a good 40% of every corporation's clients are EITHER Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. It would be suicidal for any publicly held corporation to take such risks. How many CEO's does even the most liberal person imagine will risk their gigantic salaries to make a political point? And private entities like the Koch brothers? They can spend their money just as easily buying adds personally as well as under a corporate name (though they'd still risk alienating about half their clients). Liberals who want to restrict free speech aren't "liberal". They are power hungry politicians who don't want to be questioned by anyone or ANYTHING.

Jeff Jacoby is mistaken. He said: "Because corporations are legal "persons," for example, they can rent property without requiring the signature of every shareholder on every lease. They can be sued in court as single entities, without obliging plaintiffs to go after tens of thousands of individual defendants. They can be taxed. They can enter into contracts. They can register patents." He neglected to mention that the shareholders are INSULATED from personal loss, and personal suit. Corporations CANNOT "register" patents (the correct term of art is "file a patent application"). In order to file for a patent in the US, one has to be a natural person. No corporation can file for a patent in its own name. A corporation can own patents by having them assigned ("sold") to it by the human inventors. I am a patent attorney, and that is patent law 101. Going a bit further, corporations also cannot VOTE. They are "citizens" of the state (or of multiple states) in which they are incorporated, but they don't get to vote anyway. So I have a question: If the MANAGERS of a corporation in which I own stock want to donate to a campaign, who gives THEM the right to spend the PROFITS that belong to ME without asking ME if I approve, or without asking ME which party I want them to donate my PROFITS to? Allowing corporations to spend any amount of money on a political campaign also runs that risk that foreigners (non-citizens of the U.S.) could organize a U.S. corporation, and use it as a vehicle to inject money into a U.S. election, when the same foreigners would be prohibited form making any expenditure on a U.S. political campaign directly (that is, without using the corporation as a conduit). The issue is whether allowing U.S. Corporations to spend any amount on political campaigns is such a smart idea. Foreign citizens can't vote in U.S. elections and can't make donations either. Why should another entity that cannot vote get the right to donate? The Supreme Court Justices in Citizens United, assumed that, OF COURSE, there is NO possibility that huge financial expenditures might be viewed by the donor and the candidate they are helping as creating an expectation of favorable treatment. That assumption is clearly open to question.

Nutty Joe, the corporations aren't donating to campaigns (though certainly when a UNION runs an ad favoring a Democrat's policies it enhances that Democrat's potential success),they are simply being allowed to SPEAK whatever they will. What gives the right of corporate management to speak for a shareholder? Well the same right that they have to set any corporate policy and have it struck down by a vote by a majority of stockholders. Happens all the time (as a patent attorney likely knows). Of course you have the right as a shareholder to object by selling your shares and by not using the products and services of the corporation in question, don't you? In other words, you are not bound to supporting the speech of any corporation (or other entity) unless you FREELY choose to do so. I presume that makes your points moot, no?