2014 Pledge to Amend Candidate Responses

Use the chart below to jump down to the candidates' responses from your state. If your state does not have a link in the table, it means we have no candidate responses from your state at this time.

All candidates in each race listed were given the questions with the same amount of time to respond. If responses from some candidates are not below, it means that they chose not to respond to our questionnaire. We will continue to accept and post responses up to the day of the election.

If you are a candidate and would like to submit a response, or if you would like to encourage candidates missing from below to respond, please use this link. We will update this page with new responses every few days.

If you have corrections to the information below, please write to affiliate-support [at] movetoamend.org (subject: Pledge%20to%20Amend) . If you have questions about Move to Amend's 2014 Pledge to Amend campaign, please call our office at 707-269-0984.

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California
Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia
Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa
Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland
Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri
Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey
New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio
Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina
South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont
Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

ALASKA

Alaska: U.S. House of Representatives

Forrest Dunba

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

“If elected, I will support legislation that ends corporate personhood and resists big money in politics. Our current system disenfranchises Americans and weakens faith in our democracy.  Along with limitations on Super PACS, we must also fight for transparency to determine who is funding candidates and organizations. Finally, there are creative, statutory solutions—such as the “Patriot Dollars” proposal promoted by Lawrence Lessig—that can move us closer to a “one person, one vote” ideal in the area of campaign finance.”

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

“The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court represented both bad law and bad policy.  As Justice Stevens made abundantly clear in dissent, Citizens United was first-and-foremost an unoriginalist decision, totally disconnected from the actual meaning of the First Amendment as understood by our Founding Fathers.

Furthermore, Citizens United clearly contradicted the wishes of a large majority of the American people. The creation of super PACS and non-disclosing organizations is counter to rational public policy. It is the right of the people to know where political money comes from.

Without this transparency, special interests groups can freely spend unlimited amounts of money in any given election cycle without fear of repercussions. The post-Citizens United world has exacerbated the system of “dependence corruption” described by Lessig in Republic Lost (the single best book for understanding the current pathologies in Congress). This reliance on big money, either from PACS or max donors, creates greater influence for wealthy individuals and corporations.

The Citizens United decision did not create the “pay to play” political climate, but it made it significantly worse.  It is time we move back toward a “one person, one vote” ideal, not just in voting but also in campaign finance.  A good first step would be appointing judges who actually care about the original meaning of the First Amendment and will overturn Citizens United.”


Alaska: U.S. Senate

Mark Begich

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I strongly oppose the secret, unlimited campaign donations that have flooded our elections since the Citizens United ruling. That’s why I support and was proud to vote for the Democracy for All Amendment (SJ Res 19) to overturn it. I was the first statewide candidate in Alaska to sign the ‘We the People’ pledge stating that corporations are not people and that as an elected representative I will continue to oppose “corporate personhood.”

I also co-sponsored the DISCLOSE Act to restore transparency and accountability to our elections. The bill simply requires the disclosure of big dollar donors who fund political activities, just like our state law, and it is unbelievable that the Senate did not have the votes to pass it.

I believe our elections should be decided by voters - not billionaires like the Koch brothers who can spend unlimited amounts of secret money to buy elections, like they are trying to do this year with Alaska’s U.S. Senate seat.

We need real and lasting reforms like those I have supported so that Alaskans’ voices, instead of Outside corporate interests, are heard. Only a permanent solution can provide that – not a temporary pledge.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Court’s decision in Citizens United could not have been more wrong, and it will be considered one of the Court’s biggest failures for decades to come. Five justices clearly either don’t understand or don’t care how elections work, and we need to overturn their mistake as soon as possible to make sure the voices of everyday voters matter. I strongly oppose the secret, unlimited campaign donations that have been pouring into Alaska since the Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates.

I believe that as a United States senator, I am and must be accountable to the people of my state who elected me, not big donors or corporations. I’m committed to fighting to make sure politicians can’t sell out their constituents to billionaires who can buy elections for them.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



ARIZONA

Arizona: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Raul Grijalva

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

It’s time for every Member of Congress to stand up to corporate influence in our political system. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I have led efforts to do just that. The caucus voted unanimously to “declare our support for amending the Constitution of the United States to restore the rights of the American people, undermined by Citizen’s United and related cases, to protect the integrity of our elections and limit the corrosive influence of money in our democratic process.” Since then, myself and members of the caucus have worked with community leaders across the country to hold rallies, press events, local resolution efforts, grassroots education campaigns and more to gain support for a constitutional amendment.

Amending the Constitution is a long, hard journey, and while it is one worth traveling, members of Congress have more work to do. That’s why I am an original cosponsor of several pieces of legislation that will work to restore election power to individuals. One example is the Government By The People Act of 2014, which will empower small donors by establishing a tax credit and by matching all small contributions, making them more meaningful for politicians. Another is the Grassroots Democracy Act of 2013, which creates a “People’s Fund” to allow grassroots-supported campaigns to access the resources needed to combat massive corporate spending. Millionaires and billionaires should not be the only feasible candidates for elected office. Only when an individual’s voice can be heard as clearly as a lobbyist will Washington start working again. This is something all Members of Congress should understand, and they should join me immediately in working to pass these bills.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The 2010 Citizen’s United Supreme Court case opened the floodgates to special interest spending in political campaigns and, in the process, placed American democracy on the auction block. Mega donors and SuperPACs, freed from limits and regulations, saturated the airwaves and bankrolled entire political campaigns. They promoted their own agendas with no need to disclose donors or conflicts of interest with the public. This new political reality is fundamentally at odds with the long-standing American value that the will of the people determines the outcome of our elections, not the checkbooks of the few.

We must restore transparency, accountability and fairness to our political process. I am committed to fighting for citizen-funded elections and small donor equality. The voices of the poor are no less important than the voices of the rich, and we cannot rest until the 99% have the same rights and protections of our free speech in elections that the Supreme Court gave the 1%.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



ARKANSAS

Arkansas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Debbie Standiford

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will focus on making sure government doesn't have favors to sell. When it is no longer profitable for corporations to donate to government, then those donations will cease naturally.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Supreme Court upheld the 1st Amendment which enumerates the natural right of free speech. We cannot fix the problems of government by restricting more rights.


Arkansas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 04

Ken Hamilton

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Corporations are created for financial reasons and are not persons.  I oppose both corporations and unions being allowed to donate to or advertise in political campaigns.  I advocate allowing individuals and groups of individuals to donate as much money as they desire to political campaigns, without limits, as long as donations are reported to the public with the name of the donor and the amount donated.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I think that Citizens United was wrongly decided. People are people.  Corporations are not people. I would support the Congress overturning this U.S. Supreme Court decision through the amendment process if the Court does not revisit this issue and reverse its decision.  Therefore, I support the Move To Amend Coalition’s efforts to clarify that corporations are not people. However, I do not support efforts to restrict campaign spending or the amount that an individual or group of individuals can donate.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



CALIFORNIA

California: Berkeley City Council

Kriss Worthington

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I sponsored City Council items to get Berkeley officially on record to end corporate personhood, to support federal, state and city efforts to overturn Citizen's United, and Hobby lobby. Also sponsored proposals for Campaign Finance Reform by publicly funded elections at the city and state level. this year i supported state prop 49 until it was taken off the ballot. Wrote the council item to put Proposition P on the current ballot in Berkeley as an advisory measure on overturning Citizen's united. and worked with CalPIRG and Move to Amend to get it on our current ballot. .

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It is obscene and needs to be reversed ASAP. See actions i already took mentioned in last question. Committed to continuing to work hard to overturn this.


California: Cloverdale City Council

Jude Gibson-Byers

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

By not accepting contributions from corporate entities.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I completely disagree.  Money is not speech.  Human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.


California: Cloverdale City Council

Michele Penirian Winterbottom

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will propose a resolution supporting the amendment to Citizen's United and the decision of the Supreme Court allowing money to buy elections. We need to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech and corporations are NOT people, and are not persons entitled to constitutional rights. In a democracy people and ONLY people should have a say.. corporations and money have NO rights in the Constitution. We are losing our democracy and our Elections to money and corporate greed.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe that Citizens United should be overturned.. and the Supreme Court has made the worst decision ever which has drowned out the voices of Every Day American's.. Our Elections are now run with MONEY and GREED.. It is impossible for every day American's to run for office.. Elections should be publicly funded so that ALL PEOPLE may run for office. This ruling have given THE RICH, corporations and unions the right to give and spend unlimited sums of money on political activity and BUY the offices.. through lobbying, through corporate greed and those that want to destroy democracy by either reversing the Health Care Acts, amending the Voter's Rights Act.. and America's rights of Democracy.


California: Cloverdale City Council

Gus Wolter

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

If I have the opportunity to vote on a resolution that makes sense I will.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Favor of it! We can't have corporations and unions running our Government.


California: Fort Bragg City Council

Mark Lacuaniello

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support all local resolutions to end corporate constitutional rights.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I was saddened by this decision and will support the constitutional amendment to reverse it!


California: Milpitas City Council

Rob Means

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Encourage the Council to join the long list of cities that have passed a resolution in favor of a 28th Amendment.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

That decision was another in a long list of erroneous decisions based upon the Supreme Court-created doctrine of corporate Constitutional rights. It will take a Constitutional amendment to overturn this doctrine, just as it did to overturn earlier Court decisions that women can't vote, and white people can own black people.


California: Mayor City of Petaluma

David Glass

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I was first elected Mayor as the result of legislation that established the benefits of the Clean Money Campaign. That election enabled Petaluma to have a Mayor independent of the funding from powerful special interests.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I think it is misguided. There is too much money in politics rather than not enough. This makes the money more of a factor and has the effect of dominating rather than assisting the education of the voter in a meaningful manner.


California: Petaluma City Council

Dave King

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Petaluma already has an ordinance limiting campaign donations to $200.00 per person or entity. Since this is a local office, I will be working on local issues. On an individual basis, I support a constitutional amendment to allow states and the federal government to regulate campaign financing. Since Buckley v. Valeo, the US Sup. Ct. has restricted legislative attempts at campaign finance regulation. Until the Constitution permits such regulation, efforts to reform campaign funding will remain futile.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I do not agree with the conclusion of the majority. This decision justifies a Constitutional amendment that says, in essence, money is not speech and further, permits Congress and the states to pass reasonable campaign finance laws.


California: Petaluma City Council

Janice  Cader-Thompson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As a citizen and as a future representative I will work with my representatives to move forward with the constitutional amenmdment to protect voters rights.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am 100% opposed to the decision.


California: Point Arena City Council

Deb Heatherstone

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am fortunate to live in Point Arena, California, the first city in the United States to create a resolution on April 25, 2000, that states; "Democracy means governance by the people. Only natural persons should be able to participate in the democratic process.

Interference in the democratic process by corporations frequently usurps the rights of citizens to govern.

Corporations are artificial entities separate and apart from natural persons. Corporations are not naturally endowed with consciousness or the rights of natural persons. Corporations are creations of law and are only permitted to do what is authorized under law."

Money is not speech, and human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

I will continue to use my public office to encourage discussion and action that makes these truths be known. I believe in grass roots movements and progressive local government and will speak out about the corruption that disfigures our democracy at all levels. I will imagine a just and equal world for the people of the United States and do my best to foster these ideals in my community.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe it was a bad ruling and I agree with the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that it was the worst ruling ever made by the Supreme Court! It overturned precedents and allowed money to become free speech, without restrictions. Very disappointing....


California: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 02

Juan-Antonio Carballo

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will commission studies, then drive specific legislation, to ensure corporations cannot directly influence elections.

I will drive towards a goal of equal opportunity for all candidates to get their message out to the same number and type of constituents.

I will push for innovative approaches to accomplish these goals. These may include but not be limited to the use of new technologies to ensure coverage and reach for all qualified candidates.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Although I fully support the First Amendment, this Decision seems problematic in that it would seem to support that corporations are entities with free speech, as if they were actual people. It could open the door for multi-million-dollar investments in essentially political advertisements straight out of corporations' budgets. This decision is often credited with spurring the creation of super PACs, which can take essentially unlimited contributions.


California: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 06

Michael Nulty

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will answer this question after the election, after I have consulted with the City Attorney's Office.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Please visit my website.


California: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 06

Jamie Whitaker

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

If elected District 6 Supervisor in the City and County of San Francisco, I will have the ability to focus attention and educate voters on public policy issues that need action and their voices. Money has damaged our democracy in Washington, D.C., in Sacramento, CA, and in the City and County of San Francisco. I will help to organize support for efforts at the local, state, and federal levels to end big money in politics and the notion that a corporation has a right to free speech with no limits.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I wholeheartedly disagree with the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision. There should be zero corporate money going into electioneering. Corporations are not people.


California: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 08

George Davis

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Inform the California Senators and local House Representatives of my constituents plus my own position on the "big money" threats to democracy.

Locally, San Francisco has a system of public financing of Supervisor and Mayoral elections, but it is based on the ability to raise money.  I would reform that to basing the funding on some type of populist petitioning funding ratios.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Opposed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Need an amendment or a more representative Supreme Court


California: Santa Rosa City Council

Keith Rhinehart

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

By crafting a local ordinance and supporting County and State legislation supporting the objectives of Move to Amend.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Corporations are NOT people and should not have a voice in our Constitutional election processes.


California: Sebastopol City Council

Una Glass

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will advocate to the public for local, state and federal bills that will terminate corporate constitutional rights that should only be accorded real live people. I will do this through  public commentary, discussions with constituents and the press/media.  When appropriate, I will bring forward and support resolutions to be passed by our city council in support of the ending corporate "personhood"  as well as seriously limiting big money in politics.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United decision was a disaster and I completely disagree with the legal reasoning underlying it. This decision and others like it are undermining our democracy. We need to amend the Constitution to remedy this disaster as well as work to elect Presidents and a Congress that will appoint/confirm Supreme Court Justices in the future who are not right wing ideologues but who follow the intent of our Constitution in upholding individual PEOPLE's rights.


California: Sebastopol City Council

Jonathan Greenberg

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will introduce and support a resolution for right to amend,a s well as a resolution to support public campaign financing for county-wise, statewide and national office. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Strongly opposed to it. I have been an advocate of public campaign financing for more than 20 years.


California: Sonoma City Council

Ken Brown

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am willing to put this issue on our council's agenda. I will strive to get the required votes needed to pass it.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

This was a very poor decision.


California: Sonoma City Council

Cameron Stuckey

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Whatever I can do to lobby and rally my fellow councilman and constituents to bring the previous question to fruition.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am appalled.  It give corporations the power to influence politics and goes against everything the constitution states. It give corporations and unions the voice and power they don't deserve and takes away from the will of the people. In the end greed will win.


California: State Assembly, District 17

David Campos

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics? `

The question now, is how will our voices be heard in a political arena awash with corporate money. Middle and working class Californians just can’t compete in this kind of political system, dominated by big money. That’s why Californians, in overwhelming numbers, support reigning in money in politics. I fully support this popular movement to redress the significant threat that Citizens United poses, standing by congressional proposals to amend the Constitution. Here in California I support statewide efforts, like Proposition 49, which seek to overturn Citizens United. Additionally, to reintroduce transparency back into our democracy, I support AB2321, which requires corporations to file annual reports of their political expenditures and SB 27 which targeted dark money being funneled through nonprofits by the Koch brothers and their ilk. In Sacramento I will push to toughen disclosure requirements, so voters know who’s really paying for political ads. Finally I am also supportive of reforms that prohibit fundraising during the legislative session, limit the outside employment of legislators, and increase public financing. Campaign finance reform must be comprehensive and across the board in order to foster a fair democracy and if I am sent to Sacramento I will make it one of my top priorities.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Citizens United is a direct assault on our democracy. The people should be the principal stakeholders in our democracy, not big money corporate interests. Like no other decision in the last century, Citizens United directly opens the door to just that, the buyout of our government by corporate dollars. Under the specious cover of protecting freedom of speech, the right-wing majority of the court has, in fact, silenced the middle and working classes, whose voices have been drowned out by special interest money.  I have seen first hand why campaign finance reform is essential, with an avalanche of hard corporate money being used to smear me, as well as the billionaire bullies who own those corporations piling on top with hundreds of thousands more in soft money. The corruption of big money politics is pervasive from Washington to state capitals and even down into local contests. San Francisco for example, has our very own Koch brothers. Two supporters of my opponent, tech billionaires Ron Conway and Reid Hoffman, have dumped $600,000.00 of their own money into the race covering the city in negative attack pieces in an effort to counter my grassroots campaign. This sort of unlimited spending in American politics is a corrupting influence and threatens the integrity of our democratic process.


California: State Senate, District 02

Mike McGuire

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

In 2012 I supported a resolution before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, and I certainly would have voted in favor of the state legislature’s Joint Resolution calling for the same constitutional amendment.  I also strongly supported the fundraising limitation and new reporting regulations approved by our State Senate this past year.  As a state senator I will continue to focus on sunshine laws that will better inform voters as to where the money is coming from so that they can make a conscious decision to support or oppose candidates backed by particular groups and interests, and I have been a supporter of the DISCLOSE Act.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It was a terrible decision that has had, and will continue to have, a negative effect on our political system. We must pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn this decision.


California: State Assembly, District 02

Jim Wood

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will continue to speak out on this position. Our state legislature should continue to push forward on this issue and I would have supported recent efforts to call for a constitutional amendment. I think it is extremely important that people know where the money is coming from in politics and will support efforts to disclose that information - and I have been a supporter of the DISCLOSE Act. People need to be well informed about where campaign money is coming from before they vote to support a candidate. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe that the Supreme Court simply got it wrong and it apparent that the only way to get it right is to amend the Constitution. Until that happens we will continue to feel the effects on our political system.


California: State Assembly, District 04

Bill Dodd

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

During my primary election where $1.4 million was spent by independent expenditures, I saw the major downsides of outside groups being able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the political process. As a state legislator, I will support efforts to advocate for greater transparency in campaign finances and ending unlimited contributions to independent expenditures.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am opposed to the Citizens United decision, which has opened the flood gates to unlimited political spending (mostly on negative advertising — another downside of the decision) by outside groups that are unaccountable to the people.


California: State Assembly, District 17

David Chiu

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

"Since first being elected to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors in 2008, I have been one of City Hall’s fiercest advocates for increasing government transparency and limiting the influence of big money in our city politics. Over the past 6 years, I have authored and passed several pieces of local ethics reform legislation that have put in place stricter rules governing corporate lobbyists registering their activities with the city and making that information available to the public, created an online system to track lobbying activity that takes place in city government, and created new disclosure standards for those seeking to influence local elected officials.

If elected to the California State Assembly, I would champion the passage of far more expansive ethics and campaign finance reform legislation. I would work to replicate landmark reform measures we have passed in San Francisco for all Californians, such as our public financing system for political candidates, and would also support legislation and other political efforts to further limit the amount of corporate money that could be spent in local and statewide races. My proven track record of being able to build the consensus necessary to pass tough ethics reform is needed in the State Assembly, where efforts to get corporate dollars out of our political system faces fierce opposition from both sides of the aisle."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

In 2012, I authored a successful resolution at our San Francisco Board of Supervisors that put San Francisco on record in opposing the 2010 Citizens United decision. I firmly disagree with the Roberts Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding the rights of corporations and big business, and believe that reversing this decision is necessary to guarantee free and fair elections that are the foundation of our democracy. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his dissent, corporations have no thoughts, consciences, feelings, beliefs or desires, and the granting of “personhood” status to big businesses is legalistic fiction. The decision superseded local and state campaign finance laws, and I believe that Californians should be able to control the influence of corporations in our politics and elections, and not have this dictated from Washington.


California: State Assembly, District 42

Karalee Hargrove

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

California has been working to negate the impact of Citizens United.  I will support legislation like bills to reveal contributors both through non profit organizations and through corporate PACs.  I will support effort to have California call for a Constitutional Amendment.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It was a bad decision.


California: State Attorney General

Ronald Gold

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

All legal means.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Oppose strongly!


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Heidi Hall

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I agree with Move to Amend's position that "We believe corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges citizens and their elected representatives willfully grant them. Our Amendment will reverse the Court’s invention of "corporate personhood" and limit corporations to their proper role: doing business." To that end, I will propose and/or support legislation that repeals rights inappropriately given to corporations, including secrecy regarding money in politics and allowing spending money to be equivalent to free speech. I will also support legislation repealing "negative free speech rights" to corporations.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It was mistaken and should be overturned.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Jared Huffman

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am a co-sponsor of the We the People Amendment in the House.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Opposed.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

James Hinton

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support a statute and or a Constitutional Amendment declaring that corporations are not people.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I condemn Citizens United as an attack on democracy and an attempt to establish oligarchy in the United States.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Mike Thompson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I have co-authored and voted for legislation that would close the loophole created by the Citizens United case and require big money interests to stand by their campaign ads just like candidates. I believe it is the only way to curtail the flood of unrestricted special interest campaign donations.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am opposed to the ruling and I support passing legislation to address the Citizens United decision. The misguided ruling in this case opened the door to nearly unlimited and anonymous corporate spending in elections. We need transparent, accountable and equitable campaign finance laws that allow the voices of American middle class families and small businesses to be heard. We cannot continue to let the deep pockets of big banks, big donors and corporate lobbyists control the conversation. I have voted to close the loopholes created by the Citizens United case and I will keep fighting to make sure our elections aren’t for sale to the highest bidder.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Bob Conaway

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Speak about the adverse effects of Citizen's United as I already have & seek co-sponsors of appropriate legislation.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Its the single most unpatriotic decision in the modern era.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 24

Lois Capps

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I remain committed to passing comprehensive campaign finance reform. As a member of Congress, I have cosponsored legislation to amend the Constitution to explicitly grant Congress and state governments the authority to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal and state elections.  This legislation would not only work to undo the harmful effects of the Citizens United ruling, but would pave the way for comprehensive campaign finance reform. I have also written to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission supporting additional oversight that would require corporations to disclose political expenditures.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I remain deeply troubled by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. Our country continues to see the harmful effects of Citizens United as millions of dollars are being spent in campaigns across the country by Super PACs with no accountability or transparency and corporate speech has replaced individual speech in our public discourse. This ruling has completely changed the landscape of political campaigns, allowing outside money to have a tremendous impact on our political process. I remain committed to passing comprehensive campaign finance reform to undo the destructive results of Citizens United.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 28

Steve Stokes

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As an independent, I will work with representatives on both sides to obtain the required 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to amend the Constitution. I will author and support legislation that limits the power and influence of corporations and other special interests on the electoral and legislative processes and strengthens to voice on individual citizens. California and Vermont have already called for a constitutional convention to repeal Citizens United and I will speak publicly and negotiate to encourage other states to do the same.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Our representative democracy is in crisis. I support passing a 28th amendment to clarify that corporations are not people and money is not speech. Justice Stevens who dissented in the 2010 decision in Citizens United now supports this constitutional amendment. I will make passing and ratifying this amendment a priority.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 31

Pete Aguilar

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support legislation, including the possibility of a constitutional amendment, to overturn the misguided Citizens United decision. The influence of dark money in politics is detrimental to our democracy, and I plan to use the power of my office as well as my platform to advocate for common sense campaign finance reform.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The 2010 Citizens United decision was misguided. By granting corporations First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court not only opened the flood gates for dark money in politics, but the decision now demands constitutional action to reverse the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment. As the Mayor of Redlands, I worked with my colleagues to make Redlands the first city in San Bernardino County to pass a city resolution calling for an amendment to overturn Citizens United.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 41

Mark Takano

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Mark Takano has supported measures in the House of Representatives that reduce the influence of money in the political process. As one of the few federally elected candidates who does not take money from Wall Street, Mark Takano is a true progressive leader.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Mark Takano believes that the 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. the FEC should be overturned and that a Constitutional amendment is a pathway that should be pursued towards that objective.


California: U.S. House of Representatives, District 49

Dave Peiser

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will propose or support legislation which seeks to overturn the Supreme Court decisions that determined corporations have the same rights as people, as well as those determining money equals speech.

I support campaign finance reform, and support the proposition of fully publicly financed elections.

I support complete, real time transparency in political contributions, political advocacy groups, think tanks,  lobbying, and access to elected officials by donors. Those in public office must serve the people, not monied interest groups. We must stop the "revolving door" in Washington DC, which has become a corrupting influence in our political system.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I oppose the Citizen's United decision and stand with the four dissenting Supreme Court Justices.  I am in favor of attempts within the Senate to amend the Constitution, block corporations from receiving person-hood status.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



COLORADO

Colorado: U.S. Senate

Mark Udall

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

"I have long advocated for campaign finance reform, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. I am an original cosponsor of S.J.Res.19, a constitutional amendment that clarifies Congress has the authority to reform and regulate election spending. I was disappointed when my Republican colleagues in the Senate blocked an effort to move forward with this amendment.

I also helped introduce S.2516, the Democracy Is Strengthened By Casting Light On Spending In Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. This bill would bring much needed additional transparency to the election activities of outside groups and would help Coloradans understand who is paying for these activities.

These two pieces of legislation are important in order to bring greater transparency to our election process and protect our democracy. We need to ensure that special interests don’t drown out the voices of the American people in elections, and I will continue fighting for these and other efforts."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

By declaring that corporations are people, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling four years ago opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited cash trying to buy our elections. We need to overturn Citizens United and make sure that every American — not just big corporations or billionaires — has a fair shot at making their voices heard in who runs our government. When out-of-state billionaires can drown out the voices of Coloradans, I don't think that the system is fully faithful to our constitutional right of free speech.



CONNECTICUT

Connecticut: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Jeffery Russell

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

the aincient Roman Republic invented the entity we call a corporation. they made it a person in a court of law for the sole purpose of being able to hold a corporation legally accountable. under the Romans, a corporation had only those rights nessasary to accomplish its chartered purpose. i would do whatever is possible to return to that situation. the aplication of the 14th ammendmant to corporations is insane. that is what started the real trouble here. as far as getting money out of politics, i am personnally refusing any and all monitary donations. money will not influence me. it isn't much, but it is astart.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

i am firmly convinced that those who voted in the majority are out of touch with reality to the point they are a danger to themselves and others. i am convinced this is grounds for impeachment. if ellected, i would move articles of impeachement and push to remove the justices involved from the bench.


Connecticut: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Joe Courtney

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

With the Supreme Court's decisions in Citizen's United and more recently in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, we are seeing a dramatic increase in campaign spending by corporations and wealthy individuals looking to influence our elections. I support legislative action to reverse some of the most damaging aspects of these rulings, such as a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to reverse Citizens United and legislation to establish public financing for congressional campaigns as a way to level the playing field and reduce corporate influence in our elections. With spending by shadowy outside groups rising every year, this is one of the most urgent issues facing our nation and I will continue to work to reverse this damaging ruling.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

As stated above, I oppose the decision and will work to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their income and financial status, are afforded equal access to our government and our political system.


Connecticut: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Elizabeth Esty

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The floodgates of special interest money in our elections have imperiled the very cornerstone of our democracy. We need to do more to prevent money from drowning out the voices of voters. That’s why I’ve been backing reforms in Congress to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics. I'm a coauthor of a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. I'm also a proud cosponsor of legislation, such as the Government By the People Act, H.R. 20, and the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 148, to enhance disclosure requirements and transparency in our campaign finance system.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe the Supreme Court made a severely misguided decision in Citizens United, which is why I'm a coauthor of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



FLORIDA

Florida: State House, District 06

Henry N. Lawrence, III

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Sponsor and support legislation for electoral reforms in support of Move To Amend

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Should never have happened Needs to be overturned.


Florida: State House, District 103

Benjamin De'Yurre

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am advocating to propose spending the half of the money used in political campaigns, in donations to Hospitals, Colleges, Libraries, etc. As journalist, I've written about this matter before.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Allowing to make unlimited contributions to any PAC is like to offer on sale a public office. Public positions should be chosen without corporate interference.


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Mark Wichern

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Luther Lee

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Continue to actively speak out against corporate constitutional rights.  Vote for and propose legislation that will end corporate constitutional rights.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I don't believe that corporations are protected under the First Amendment as they are not people.  If a company desires to have First Amendment protections and be treated as a person, then it must also have liabilities as a person and should register the business as a sole proprietorship or partnership, etc...


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 07

Al Krulick

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Educate, communicate, legislate

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Overturn with Constitutional Amendment.


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 07

Wes Neuman

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

When money equals speech, and when corporations are given the same rights as people, the will of the people becomes secondary to the will of the corporation. This is unacceptable. That is why I will adamantly support Move to Amend’s proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which correctly posits that corporations do not have Constitutional rights. As such, Federal, State, and local government should have the power to regulate, limit, and/or prohibit campaign contributions and expenditures, and to mandate that such expenditures and contributions be publicly disclosed.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Corporations are not people, and, at best, loosely reflect the people who constitute their shareholders and owners. It follows that if a democracy is to have a government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the voice of people must be ultimately valued. People – whose consciences, beliefs, feelings, thoughts and desires comprise the country and society we live in – should have the final say in policy, not business entities; no corporation has a conscience, or beliefs, or feelings, or thoughts, or desires.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v FEC was misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. I firmly agree with Supreme Court Justice Stevens, who wrote in his dissent: “Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We The People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” 


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Gabriel Rothblatt

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

By proposing/ sponsoring legislation to regulate and/or eliminate this influence, and advocating for divestment from corporations and industries which use it to wield unconstitutional influence over legislation.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I support a conversation on the evolving concept of personhood. However just because something deserves the recognition of personhood, does not make it eligible for citizenship, and furthermore participation in the political process. I oppose this ruling and will seek to see it overturned.


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 10

Michael McKenna

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

My campaign run in a three way primary spending $5,000.00 against opponent who spent over $35,000.00 per campaign. With my low budget I was able to win the primary with 49.7% of the vote.  This type of campaign, grassroots, proves that big money is not the answer and that politicians seeking office should want 1 million supporters than 1 million dollars.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

"I don't think elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. This was and still is a major blow to Democracy. We need politicians who will work for the vote. We must remove corporations from campaigns and put the power of the democratic process back in the hands of the American people." -Michael McKenna, Democratic Candidate for U.S. Congress in FL-10.


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 16

Joseph J. Newman

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

1)  Work with other members of Congress to prepare a sound amendment.

2)  Work with members of congress to bring resolution to the floor

3) Work on Florida State legislature to act quickly when "Move to Amend" clears Congress.

4) Keep District informed of progress and in involvement in achieving passage.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The decision is itself unconstitutional; it violates the first six words of the Constitution "We the people of the United States." If you prick them (corporations) do they bleed, if you tickle them do they laugh??


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 17

William Bronson (Will)

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I have accepted, nor would I accept, any donations from any corporations who would require that I agree to pass only legislation approved by that corporation. It is my intention to use my office, should I be so blessed, to act on bettering the lot of my Florida constituents and no one else. Regardless if it is healthcare, clean air and water, animal rights, education, veterans' benefits and jobs, these will be my primary objectives. And getting the top 1% to start contributing to the health and welfare of this state by taking away the welfare that that 1% has been receiving for no logical reason.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

First, there is nothing "united" about Citizens United. That's just another one of those deceptive choices of words that the GOP is so good at, that gives the general public that warm, cozy feeling of something that is right for all, including them. In fact, it is a cancer that this Supreme Court has seen fit to infect this country with, to the complete and total loss of all democratic processes and conversion to an oligarch government where the very, very powerful can run amok, unregulated and without any moral compass to save the dwindling middle class. Unless it is reversed by the Supreme Court itself, the only solution I see is an all out campaign to do two things: 1) make voters' rights a part of the Constitution, and 2) amend the Constitution so that no other Supreme Court can ever classify a non-person such as a business or corporation as a "person", nor can money ever be interpreted to mean speech.


Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, District 19

Ray Netherwood

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will sponsor, co-sponsor, or support legislation, or back a proposed Constitutional Amendment, to limit or restrict political donations by non-human entities.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The SC simply got this totally wrong, much like the ACA. I do not believe that the founders would ever have intended for corporations or unions to be considered "persons" -- nor that they would have envisioned how corrupt the two-party fund raising schemes have become.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



GEORGIA

Georgia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 07

Thomas Wight

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

A change in the definition of "person" in Article 1 of the U.S. Code will be sufficient.  Corporations only have speech rights because Congress defined "person" too broadly and has failed to act to correct their mistake.  A Constitutional Amendment is not necessary. Holding Congress responsible for its inaction is what is required.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The decision is correct given the current definition of person.  The Supreme practically demands that Congress fix the problem.  Congress has failed to take up issue.


Georgia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 09

David Vogel

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

My chief campaign effort is to get citizens to my website where reversal of Citizens United is tied to the flood of wealth to the richest 0.01% of Americans in an 11-minute video I want every voter to watch. I will continue with that kind of effort in office.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I join Thomas Jefferson and others in believing that the greatest threat to the Republic is control of government by banks and corporations.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



HAWAII

Hawaii: Maui County Council, South Maui District

John Fitzpatrick

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As a county council member I don't believe we have control over this, but I could use the position to help educate the public about the grave consequences of the Citizens United decision. I will also use it to form partnerships with those higher in office that can tackle this issue.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I think the supreme court made a terrible decision and it needs to be fixed. All the super PAC money and their ability to advertise lies and deceptive to rig the election is not right. We need to make democracy work for middle class families and the most vulnerable of our society, not lifeless corporations.


Hawaii: Maui County Council, West Maui District

Elle Cochran

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Hawaii: US Senate

Michael Kokoski

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I support removing special interest money from the political campaign arena. However, I am not ready to commit to amending the US Constitution without further study on the issue. As a third party candidate I would love to see big money taken out of the campaign proses. But feel that a constitution al amendment may be unnecessary to achieve such goals?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I have not read it.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

 



ILLINOIS

Illinois: Kane County Board of Supervisors, District 17

Michael Mason

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Illinois: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Commissioner

George E. Milkowski

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I would establish an independent Inspector General office with full power to investigate, subpoena, and bring charges against any individual or company that violates any ethics ordinance or State law. Every contract agreed to should be posted on line with the principals listed, including the principal owners of any company with a list of how much they contributed to any politicians in the MWRD geopolitical area.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

An unmitigated disaster that is a major nail in the coffin of American representative democracy!


Illinois: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Commissioner

Nancy Roothaan

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The local office I am running for does not have a legislative role, so I cannot fight on those grounds. However, a Commissioner's job includes financial oversight of an agency with a one billion dollar annual budget, so in that capacity I will do my best to make sure funds spent are done in the public interest. I can also speak to the issue in public appearances.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I was horrified and depressed when it happened.


Illinois: Warrenville Park District Board Commissioner

Steve Alesch

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support a resolution by the Warrenville Park District Board to support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The U.S. Supreme Court was wrong when they made this decision. A corporation or any artificial entity is not a person and money is not free speech. In a democracy the people rule.


Illinois: Secretary of State

Sheldon Schafer

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Public support for a constitutional change usually doesn't come under the purview of the Secretary of State unless such opportunity is granted by the legislature, but suffice it to say that I will welcome any legal opportunity to to speak in favor. I will certainly take advantage of any such opportunities to expose big money in politics if they arise in performance of the mandated functions of the Secretary of State. They certainly won't be swept under the rug.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I was baffled by the decision.


Illinois: Governor

Scott Summers

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Illinois: State House, District 115

Gary Shepherd

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Propose a law requiring that at least a majority of a candidate's donations come from the voters of his or her district, rather than outside corporations and political action committees.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Eight words: Corporations are not people; money is not speech.


Illinois: State House, District 117

Catherine Talbott

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support an amendment to end corporate personhood and educate my constituents as to the inherent dangers of Citizens United.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I view this as one more step in the complete merger of corporations and government for the benefit of corporate shareholders at the exclusion of the democratic rights of the majority of Americans. This is proof that we do not have government of, by, and for " we, the people," the 99%, but of, by, and for the corporations, the 1%.


Illinois: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Daniel Lipinski

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

"I support legislative efforts to limit the impact of the Citizens United ruling, and will continue to support, cosponsor and, if given the opportunity, vote for measures that will restore democracy and public interest in our campaign finance system. I have cosponsored H.R. 269, the Fair Elections Now Act, which would allow candidates for the House of Representatives to voluntarily opt into a public campaign financing system. Candidates would not be subject to campaign spending limits, but could only solicit small dollar contributions from individuals. In return for accepting this limitation, candidates would be eligible for a publicly-financed match on the donations raised. I have also cosponsored the DISCLOSE 2013 Act, which would require a wide range of organizations to identify and disclose to the public who is responsible for advertisements and electoral communications paid from these organizations’ general funds. That way, the public could make an informed judgment about the reliability of the information presented. During the 111th Congress, I was proud to write and introduce the Accountability in Corporate Political Activity Act to bar corporations convicted of a crime or subject to federal civil monetary penalties of $1 million or more from making campaign related expenditures. Corporations should be held to the same standard as individuals, who in 48 states are banned from voting while incarcerated."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

"I support legislative efforts to limit the impact of the Citizens United ruling. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court argued that campaign finance laws limited the free speech rights of certain groups as guaranteed by the Constitution. While it’s important that our justice system rigorously protect the right to free speech, the Citizens United decision is fraught with problems and I disagree that corporate speech rights are equitable to individuals’ rights to free speech. Our laws rightfully prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to American election campaigns. Our democracy should rest in the hands of Americans—not in the hands of individuals and groups from abroad. But with thousands of corporations conducting business across national borders, allowing corporate general funds to be used for political purposes opens the door to precisely this type of abuse.

Furthermore, the Citizens United ruling stands in stark opposition to the principles of transparency and disclosure so important to the electoral process. Americans should have easy access to information about who funds political communications so that they can make informed decisions about the information presented. That’s why candidates in federal elections must currently go on-camera and show their support for ads released by their campaigns. But the Citizens United decision empowers organizations and wealthy individuals to bypass laws on campaign contribution limits and to funnel unlimited amounts of money for political advertising to third-party groups that do not have to disclose their donors and would thus hold unprecedented and unchecked power."


Illinois: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Nancy Wade

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I would work with like-minded colleagues in sponsoring, cosponsoring and promoting legislation to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics. Of primary importance for me would be passing a Constitutional amendment that in effect says, "Corporations are not people and money is not speech." In addition, I would work to pass legislation that makes all campaigns publicly funded and bars PAC money from election campaigns. Eligibility for public funding would be earned through demonstrating a reasonable threshold of support with individual contributions that would then be matched with public funds, with an upper limit based on the status of the office sought.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Constitution clearly states, "We the People". It does not say "We the Corporations". We the people must take back our democracy from the corporate interests that have hijacked it. The Supreme Court's decision was wrong. We must right that wrong.


Illinois: U.S. House of Representatives, District 06

Michael Mason

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will work with other representatives to craft the language necessary to make sure that corporations do not have the opportunity to "buy" elections. I will work to pursuade reluctant members to understand that giving corporations unlimited spending ability will create an oligarchy instead of a democracy which was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Further, I will work to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United decision needs to be overturned, plain and simple.


Illinois: U.S. House of Representatives, District 09

Susanne Atanus

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

PACs are not going away and neither will donations large and small from individuals, organizations, corporations, etc.  I propose and we will have daily positive stock returns from many publicly traded corporations and banks coming to individuals accounts monthly, and to all levels of government including agencies and school, library, and park districts.  All shareholders obtaining the same rate of profit and bonuses.  We will purchase more goods and services and this will create more Jobs!-The Greatest Economic Stimulus!-Common Sense Economics.  No tax loopholes for corporations and banks.  This should level the playing field. 

This will also reduce terrorism, gangs, hunger and poverty.  I look forward to all doing well.  I am a Republican candidate for U. S. Congress 9th District for all people and all parties. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Corporations have a voice and that is o.k. in a democracy.


Illinois: U.S. House of Representatives, District 12

Paula Bradshaw

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support a Constitutional Amendment to end corporate personhood.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I oppose the 2010 decision, as well as the 1976 Buckly vs Vallejo decision, and the 1886 Santa Clara Country vs Southern Pacific Railroad decision.


Illinois: U.S. House of Representatives, District 14

Dennis Anderson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

There is far too much money in politics, and I am a strong supporter of the Move to Amend.  We are all aware of the undue access to and influence on elected officials that large donors have while the voices of everyday citizens are barely heard.

When elected I will push for publicly financed elections, change the definition of 501(c)(4)s so primarily political organizations can no longer register for a tax-exempt status, and work to end dark money in politics.  I would also cosponsor such existing legislation as H.J.Res.34 calling for an amendment reversing the Citizen's United decision.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I was appalled by the decision, as I am a strong supporter of publicly financed campaigns.


Illinois: U.S. House of Representatives, District 15

Eric Thorsland

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will continue what I have done during the campaign and raise awareness concerning this issue. Once elected I will support, sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to overturn Citizens United. The voters I have meet are adamant this decision be overturned.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It is a flawed decision that needs to be turned back. I support fully the effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to make clear corporate entities are not people. This is a apparent to the people of this district and they have made it clear they also will support this action.


Illinois: U.S. House of Representatives, District 16

Randall Olsen

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

See the last question. I will do whatever I can to undo Citizens United.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I disagree with the Citizens United decision.


Illinois: U.S. Senate

Sharon Hansen

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

If I get elected, it will be a miracle since I don't have any connections to special interest groups or very wealthy people and as a result probably have the smallest amount of donations of any candidate in history.  Also if I win, it would prove that all that money doesn't need to be spent for the right person to win.  Because I don't have essentially any money donated, it is unlikely that I can get my message out to those who would vote for me if they knew I existed.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I think it was a very bad decision.  It created a sneaky way to continue pouring large sums of money into campaign coffers without any legal oversight.  This decision makes the limits placed on individuals meaningless.  All those individuals have to do is to join a PAC and they can still donate huge sums of money to a candidate for special favors without their identity being known, the real reason why large sums of money in campaigns is dangerous for the people.  Elected officials use their position to help those who have helped them and don't care about the rest of us.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



INDIANA

Indiana: State House, District 60

Daymon Brodhacker

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Indiana: State House, District 62

Jeffrey Sparks

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Indiana: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Justin Kuhnle

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will vote for common-sense approaches to righting these wrongs, through legislative bills including Amendments to the US Constitution focusing on correcting campaign finance.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It was a gross overstep that swung the pendulum too far to the side of money being used to "purchase" elections and votes.  There needs a balance on corporate funds, PACs, and Super-PACs that are used in the field of lobbying or contributions to candidates and incumbents. 


Indiana: U.S. House of Representatives, District 04

John Dale

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I plan to pass laws that align with the constitution in that they slow down the flow of big money.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Citizens United has put too much power in the hands of the upper 1%, protecting them from being personally liable for their misdeeds. Individuals can give $2,500 an election cycle and that should be the same for corporations. 


Indiana: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Tom Spangler

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I believe in the Bible verse "The Truth will set you free". When I am elected this November and go to Congress I will use the internet, social media and all other media to make people aware of what "the good, bad and ugly" is happening in Congress. It will be stated in understandable terms and in a timely manner. You will know every time when a lobbyist and or Corporation comes in my office and wants to make a deal and or contribute to my campaign. I will also surround myself with a staff that is from my district not from the Washington Insiders. This will help me to maintain a "deep rudder" of truth and honesty!

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It is wrong and gives more power to money and special interest instead of to us the voter. We the People can send a clear message this November (concerning this decision) by voting out ALL incumbents - both parties! If this could happen new idea's and direction like term limits could help and improve our Government!


Indiana: U.S. House of Representatives, District 09

Bill Bailey

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

In any way possible

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am not an attorney or legal scholar, but I do not agree with the ruling.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



IOWA

Iowa: U.S. Senate

Rick Stewart

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I have not been convinced the Constitution is the place to end crony capitalism, especially when it can hopefully be ended without amending it. My campaign is primarily about ending the 'big money' myth in politics. I do not accept any campaign contributions at all, and have pledged to spend less than $5,000 of my own money. I intend to demonstrate hard work and outside the box thinking can beat money in political campaigns. Convincing media outlets to only sponsor political debates that include all the legally qualified candidates is a great place to start. Mutual non-proliferation agreements signed by candidates long before the election are also promising. The problem with a constitutional amendment is - what if you get it wrong? How hard will it be to correct? I prefer emergent solutions, as they have always proved more durable than legislation, which is always based on political considerations, not moral considerations.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I do not have a strong position one way or another. It is what it is. Money is only in politics because money is in Washington. Money is only in Washington because politicians promise us things they cannot deliver, then tax us to pay for them. My preference is to get money out of Washington. Turn it back into a malarial backwater where nobody wants to be - that will have a bigger impact, in my opinion, than any constitutional amendment, for the simple reason that when there is no money, and when there are no regulators, in Washington, then there will also be no corporations (or anyone else) trying to get their share of it. Shrink the government - the corporations will go away and quit caring about it. We have created our own problem, by asking Washington to do things we can much more easily, and much more cheaply, do for ourselves.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



KANSAS

Kansas: State House, District 14

Merlin Ring

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will use my office to communicate with constituents and will seek to introduce and/or support legislation for a constitutional amendment. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United decision is illogical and counter to the spirit and content of the Constitution.  The preamble begins "we the people" implying that rights and responsibilities are granted individually.  Corporations did not exist at the time of the writing of the constitution and if they are to granted the rights outlined in the constitution there should be an amendment to that effect.


Kansas: State House, District 16

Don McGuire

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will work to form coalitions that work to reduce the role of big corporate money in politics

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United Decision was terrible for our country.


Kansas: State House, District 29

Heather Meyer

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support the principle that individuals, and legitimate advocate organizations that represent those individuals and communities, should have the right and opportunity to influence legislation, not corporate entities and shadow non-profits that would like to use their vast wealth and inequitable position in order to debase commerce, policy and public opinion.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I disagree with the majority of the Citizens United decision, and believe that it should be challenged.


Kansas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Christopher Clemmons

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I intend to sponsor, support and vote for legislation that addresses the issue of money in politics.  Money does not equal speech, and this should be accurately defined via a constitutional amendment. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

While the case in particular had unfortunate consequences, i believe it was the right decision for the following reasons. 

I think we need to walk a fine line between what rights corporations have and what rights they don't have.  Media outlets are often corporations and to create an amendment that says corporations do not have rights would mean any corporate media outlet would no longer have the right of free speech.  I believe the proper way to address is to create an amendment that keeps money from being defined as speech. 

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



KENTUCKY

Kentucky: State Senate, District 12

Kathy Ryan

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As a candidate, I have chosen to primarily self-fund my campaign in order to be consistent in philosophy, such as accepting donations from non-corporate groups like labor unions and teachers whose major issues I support, while not soliciting funds from PACS which are primarily supported by corporate interests. Although to date these issues have not arisen primarily in the context of state law, if they do I will certainly advocate for ultimate power to be held by the people. I am certainly not anti-business. I am a small business owner and have represented many businesses as a lawyer. However, in a contest between a person and a corporation, the corporation usually has the advantages of superior resources. I believe in a fair and level playing field and will work to balance relative rights and duties under the law. The people and their government should have greater power than the corporations which we permit to exist and upon which we confer limited liability and other benefits not usually granted or applied to individuals.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Citizens United is just one of several Supreme Court cases which have eroded the power of the people over corporations. The essential problem lies in permitting entities the same rights as persons under the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. This has monetized our election process, removed control of campaigns away from the candidate who must try to appease numerous interest groups simultaneously in order to raise enormous amounts of money to be competitive, and made it extremely unlikely for a challenger to defeat an incumbent. It also substantially impairs each legislator's ability to perform his/her job since at all times money must be raised for the next campaign. Citizens United actually follows other less publicized decisions which hold that a corporation's First Amendment right of commercial speech trumps Article I's "Commerce Clause" thereby precluding the government's (the People's) right to regulate that corporation's activities to protect the public interest. Hobby Lobby has now extended this benefit to corporation's through the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. The only way to correct this is by the people amending the Constitution to clarify that corporations shall not have such individual rights.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



MARYLAND

Maryland: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

John Sarbanes

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am firmly committed to ending Congress' dependence on the wealthy and well-connected. Through my leadership on the House Task Force for Election Reform and authorship of the leading campaign finance reform package, the Government By the People Act (H.R. 20), I plan to continue the fight to return democratic power to the American people -- building a government of, by and for the people.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Citizens United was an incorrect and damaging decision by the Roberts' Court. Unfortunately, in recent years, Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative colleagues on the bench have continued to further deregulate our campaign finance laws -- handing even greater power to the wealthy and well-connected. It is our charge to push back.


Maryland: U.S. House of Representatives, District 04

Donna Edwards

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Reform of our campaign finance system to deal effectively with this proliferation of unlimited special interest money requires a three-legged stool approach.  This includes requiring increased disclosure of money in political campaigns, allowing the public financing of candidates for Congress, and amending the Constitution to give Congress the authority we need to regulate political campaign expenditures.  I am an original cosponsor of measures that do just that.  The DISCLOSE Act seeks to promote transparency in our political process by enhancing public reporting by corporations, unions, and outside groups of campaign-related activity, while also requiring those groups to stand by their political ads and say “I approve this message.”  The second piece of legislation is the Fair Elections Now Act, which is modeled on successful programs in several states to create a voluntary program where congressional candidates would qualify for funding to run a competitive campaign and in exchange, participating candidates would agree to strict campaign spending limits and forgo all private fundraising.

While these interim reforms should be debated and enacted into law to mitigate the influx of unregulated money in our elections, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision made it clear that only Congressional action through a constitutional amendment will address campaign finance reform permanently.   I introduced that amendment 12 days after the Supreme Court’s decision and reintroduced it in each of the next two Congresses.  H.J. Res 25 gives specific authority to Congress and the states to regulate corporate expenditures on political activity.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision reversed decades of legal precedent, allowing the public’s voice and role in our democracy to be upended in the face of unlimited and undisclosed money.  Less than two weeks after the decision was released, I, along with then House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), introduced the first constitutional amendment to reverse the flawed decision.  Our amendment would have overturned Citizens United by giving specific authority to Congress and the states to regulate corporate expenditures on political activity by imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporate entity excluding the media.  In each of the last two Congresses, now Ranking Member Conyers and I have reintroduced our amendment, which in this Congress is H. J. Res. 25, and it currently has 53 cosponsors. 

Since the ruling was issued, campaign spending by outside groups including corporations has surged.  According to the FEC, candidates, parties, and outside groups and individuals accounted for $7 billion in spending during the 2012 elections.  My amendment gives specific authority to Congress and the states to regulate corporate expenditures on political activity, which is the only way to ensure the American people, and not corporations, are in charge of our treasured democracy.


Maryland: U.S. House of Representatives, District 06

George Gluck

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Even as a candidate, I have educated voters on the history of the "Powell" memo. As a Congressman, I would continue to do so and would sponsor the amendment to reverse all the legislation since Buckley v. Valeo.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I agree with Justice Stevens' dissent that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation," and must be repealed.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



MASSACHUSETTS

Massachusetts: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

James McGovern

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, I have introduced two Constitutional amendments that address big money in politics and the fabricated doctrine of corporate constitutional rights.  H.J. Res. 20 gives Congress and the states the authority to regulate political spending, while H.J. Res. 21 amends the Constitution to make clear that corporations are not people with Constitutional rights. 

I am also a lead sponsor of H.J.Res. 119, the House companion to legislation recently taken up by the Senate (S.J.Res. 19) to grant Congress and the states the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending for money for political campaigns.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am strongly opposed to the Citizens United decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same right to free speech as people, effectively reversing decades of precedent recognizing the authority of people to regulate corporate spending in our elections.  The Citizens United decision is exacerbating the growing trend of corporations claiming first amendment rights – a movement that is increasing the influence of corporations and wealthy donors in our elections and is being used by corporations to challenge public interest laws.  

The Constitution was never intended to give corporations the same rights as the American people, and I have introduced the “People’s Rights Amendment,” H.J.Res. 21, to make clear that the rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons.  


Massachusetts: U.S. House of Representatives, District 07

Mike Capuano

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will continue doing what I have done since the Citizens United decision.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I have been an outspoken opponent of this decision from the day it was decided. I have been the lead in trying to get the SEC to adopt rules to at least allow shareholders the right to control their money.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



MICHIGAN

Michigan: Governor

Paul Homeniuk

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will push for true finance disclosure for both our officials and candidates. Michigan has one of the worst disclosure laws of any state. I will open government to the people by making all information that I have any say over available to the public without FOIA or exorbitant charges. I will speak out against corporate person-hood whenever appropriate.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Like many decisions in recent years they got it wrong. It is so obviously wrong that I believe you could make a good case for the decision being treasonous. Their ruling has no constitutional basis so they tried to hide that in legalese and double speak.


Michigan: Attorney General

John Anthony La Pietra

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

"I would not have a vote in the Michigan Legislature as Attorney General, of course.  But I would be able to testify on bills introduced, and have input on new and revised regulations -- and to write legal opinions -- covering issues of corporate personhood, campaign finances, etc.  My position would be rooted in the views I expressed in an early draft of the 2012 GPMI platform:

Corporations are not people.  They are financial creations, licensed by states in expectation that they will benefit society. Greens support the MoveToAmend effort to enshrine that fact in the Constitution, and reserve and preserve human and civil rights for human beings.  And money is not speech – no matter how great the volume of both grows, trying to drown out that fact. Greens support fair and equal laws and rules for ballot access, campaign financing that frees candidates from chasing after big bucks from special interests, and participation in public campaign forums and media coverage.""

I still believe this -- it informs my campaign to give Michigan an Attorney General *For the People*.  Even the title and address of my campaign Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/jalp4thePeople) reflects this commitment.

The Attorney General has significant responsibility for enforcing campaign-finance laws and regulations in the state, in conjunction with the Secretary of State and county prosecutors.  I will work aggressively in this area of law enforcement -- with those other offices as much as possible -- as part of my focus on rebuilding the people's trust in government.

Also, the Attorney General's office has some oversight over corporations chartered in the state -- including the statutory power (under MCL 450.1821) to take action in court to penalize or even dissolve corporations that repeatedly and willfully exceed their lawful authorities or conduct business in an unlawful manner.  I am prepared to exercise that authority for corporations that violate campaign-finance laws and regulations, and I will also be open to the possibility of challenging corporate personhood as the opportunity arises."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

"It was a bad continuation of a bad line of opinions, wrongly treating corporations as people and money as speech.  As I said in a Green Party of Michigan news release in February 2010 responding to then-Governor Granholm's State of the State speech:

"It was a Michigan case the Supreme Court overturned when its recent _Citizens United_ opinion ironically said corporations had the ‘free speech’ right to spend money on independent campaign ads.  We’ve seen in Benton Harbor what can happen when a corporation has the economic and political clout to rule a city -- raw power not balanced by duty to the people or properly checked by state agencies, much less local authorities.  Michigan needs a government run as if we the people matter.”

I have continued to oppose _Citizens United_.  As GPMI's 2012 candidate for calhoun County Clerk, I endorsed the New Progressive Alliance's Unified Progressive Platform and its anti-_Citizens United_ plank.  Similar language is in NPA's 2014 Unified Platform: http://www.newprogs.org/platform

and I am in contact with NPA about another endorsement this year.

Also, as GPMI's Platform Committee chair, I oversaw updating of the platform -- including the following paragraphs on Move To Amend issues:

GPMI is firmly on the side of *rights for people, not for corporations*. We support *amending the US Constitution* to overrule the Supreme Court, which invented corporate “personhood” long before its 2010 _Citizens United_ decision blocked controls on corporate donations for advertising during election campaigns.  We back any amendments that say *corporations are not people with Constitutional rights – and money is not speech*.

. . .

We also seek to *end the influence of money in politics*. Democracy should express the will of the people through a “one person, one vote” process.  *Public financing for all legally qualified candidates* – including *free air time the two weeks before Election Day, provided by each broadcast TV and radio station as a condition of its license* – would make ballot access meaningful.

Other reforms include a ban on political ads for those same two weeks and a ban on corporate donations to politicians, parties, PACs, or lobbyists."


Michigan: State Board of Education

Sherry A. Wells

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

"K-12 education includes studies about the Constitution and, to the extent possible, I would press to include the "of the people, by the people, for the people," and that corporations as legal "persons" is only for that limited purpose. As a Green Party candidate, we do not accept corporate contributions or even PAC money, only contributions from individuals. I/we repeat that often."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I saw no Constitutional basis for that decision. Each of the justices should have recused her/himself for having accepted corporate contributions in their seeking office. We and our ancestors have worked hard over the centuries to get our democracy closer to "one-man, one-vote" by adding former slaves, women, First Peoples. "Money talks" is not what freedom of speech was to be about.


Michigan: U.S. House of Representatives, District 09

John McDermott

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

"Please see my Declaration of Independence originally published on veteransnewsnow.com this January and shown on my website."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

"When Gannett Newspapers asked my opinion of Citizens United I wrote this response: 

Do you support a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission? What changes to the regulation of campaign finance, if any, do you support?

I believe Citizens United was wrongly decided. I would have upheld the District Court's application of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and held that the BCRA (McCain-Feingold) restriction of corporate electioneering is not a violation of the 1st Amendment. Even a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United will not address the greater problem crippling our political process and stifling our national political dialogue. Six giant media conglomerates appear to own 90% of all broadcast media. We have lost our 1st Amendment and Free Press. If we wish to regain our lost 1st Amendment and Free Press we must break up the six giant media conglomerates on both 1st Amendment and Anti-Trust theories. If we do not have the political will to take back our 1st Amendment and Free Press by breaking up the media monopolies, then overturning Citizens United by Constitutional Amendment will be pointless."


Michigan: U.S. House of Representatives, District 12

Debbie Dingell

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The Citizens United decision took our nation in the wrong direction by allowing special interests to spend enormous amounts of money to influence elections; too often, those funds are not disclosed to the public.  If elected to Congress, I will support a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision and will support legislation to ensure transparency in elections by mandating full and timely disclosure of all political campaign contributions and expenses.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

As described above, I oppose the Citizens United decision and, if elected to Congress, will support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.


Michigan: U.S. House of Representatives, District 14

Stephen Boyle

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The money is sourced from our working people and the poorest of the poor. The social good of corporate wealth never seems to get back to those extracted from in any decent manner. I want to reveal the world of lobbying efforts and always look at human rights as unalienable. Tax codes need to be altered and workforce requirements or policies established and monitored. It does no good to just watch, action has to be taken when things are inappropriate. Monetary fines don't cut into multi-national corporate health/wealth deep enough.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

OPPOSED - The body and spirit of the United States is with the people, sadly the mind seems to have taken flight when it heard big money was waiting. This country is more than it's economic prospects and the culture of our society is something I review personally each day, and encourage insight.


Michigan: U.S. Senate

Chris Wahmhoff

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I have refused campaign contributions during my campaign, and if elected will donate any pay that would put me past the Michigan poverty level. I am willing to be publicly transparent with my pay, and also will record and publicly post any lobby meetings. Further more I will boycott non tax paying lobbyists.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It should be taken out of law and is a direct attack on personal freedom and everything my family has bled for

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



MINNESOTA

Minnesota: Governor

Chris Wright

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

We must end the voter fraud known as Corporate Personhood and the Corporate control of government.  I oppose the buying, selling and renting of politicians.

Like government itself, which exists by a charter known as a constitution, corporations are brought into existence by government charter as well.  Both are artificial entities, but they are not a person. Presumably, both exist to serve the sovereign people. However, unlike a person who bears personal responsibility for his or her actions, corporations are granted limited liability.

A corporation isn’t any more human than a gun or a gang.  They can’t vote.  They can’t bear children. They're immortal and can’t die for their country.  They are intrinsically unpatriotic, with only allegiance to profits and no love of country or the people.  They don’t even have a mouth, how can they have free speech? Yet, sovereign inalienable rights, once the domain of natural persons exclusively, have been granted to corporations through a jolting display of judicial activism.

I will use the office of governor to denounce Corporate Personhood and I support a Constitutional Amendment that says, "Corporations are not people and money is not speech."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Since January 21, 2010, the landmark case known as Citizen’s United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can funnel unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns.

Organizations are corporations and should not have free speech. Citizen's United, Unions, and even the NAACP are corporations.  Only in instances where a corporation has "Judicial Standing" can they represent an individual(s). For example, in the case of NAACP v. Alabama 1958 in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 'Freedom of Association" is an essential part of free speech the NAACP had "Standing" in order to represent real people, but the NAACP is not a person.

Citizens United granted corporations free speech, a right against illegal search and seizure, a right against self-incrimination and equal protection under the law.  There is no way that an individual, or even a billionaire, can overcome the raw economic power of certain corporations to drown out individual speech; especially since 95% of all elections are won by those who spend the most money.

Sorry Reagan, Corporate government isn't the solution to the problem, Corporate government IS the problem.

Corporations should be our servants not our masters.


Minnesota: State Attorney General

Andy Dawkins

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

While moving forward on amending, I will be a leader among the 50 states attorneys general on legal challenges to corporate rule.  For example, at one time Plessy vs. Ferguson (separate but equal) was the law of the land, but Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP scoured the nation for the fact situation resulting in Brown vs. The Board of Education.  Similarly, with net neutrality in jeopardy, the Citizens United rationale (that internet fact checking would neutralize unlimited corporate propaganda) might be overcome.  I will also use my bully pulpit to get the Minnesota legislature to pass campaign contribution transparency laws.  Running as a third party candidate, if I do well, should bring Ranked Choice Voting closer to reality, which will help end the influence of big money.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Similar to former Sp. Ct. Justice John Paul Stevens:  "While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech.  Speech is only one of the activities financed by campaign contributions.  Those financial activities should not receive the same protections as speech itself, for example the Watergate burglars actions were not protected by the First Amendment."  And similar to a sign I saw at a rally:  "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."  


Minnesota: State Attorney General

Dan Vacek

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As Attorney General, I will consult Move To Amend and its attorneys about how best to utilize the resources of my office for the purpose of ending corporate personhood and reigning in the influence of big money in elections.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The 14th Amendment was meant to protect formerly enslaved persons, not corporations. I think Citizens United was wrongly decided. Even under hitherto accepted precedents, the decision was legally flawed. As far back as a century ago, Roscoe Conkling lied shamelessly about the origins, intent, and purpose of the 14th Amendment. False and legally fraudulent doctrines such as these established the legal fiction of corporate personhood in America today, protected by the 14th Amendment.


Minnesota: State House, District 03B

Wade Fremling

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support and promote any bills take money out of politics . It has to be fair and equal , as long as unions and pacs will no longer be able to donate or promote in any way then I would support keeping corporate dollars out of campaigns also .

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Money should not be the deciding factor in campaigns , but until PACS and unions are limited to what an be spent then it should be ok for corporate dollars , the ruling is fundamentally sound on its face . I do however believe that campaigns should be run on merit , money does not equal merit. If we overturn this position we will have to have private contribution limits and spending limits to make it fair and equal .


Minnesota: State House, District 07A

Jennifer Schultz

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I'll support campaign finance reform.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It represents a misinterpretation of our constitution.


Minnesota: State House, District 07A

Kristine Osbakken

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

"For over 100 years, it has been in the interest of the major political parties and always to the detriment of the people to consider corporations as persons. In 2010 SCOTUS, in a flawed decision, promoted the rights of these 'persons' to speak as loudly as possible through the megaphone of money.

Green Party candidates accept neither corporate nor PAC funding, and individual contributions are limited to a max of $1000. These reasonable limits are a paradigm for all political campaigns

I would promote legislation that would require corporations to be for the public benefit instead of for-profit, and that would eliminate their artificial status as persons.

In addition to amending the U.S. Constitution to emphasize that corporations do not have constitutional nor human rights, I will work to make elections fair and to encourage a range of voices in politics. Ideally, political campaigns would be limited in length and be financed solely through public funds, eliminating paid advertising of all kinds."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

"Shame on the major political parties for appointing SCOTUS justices who had track records against the people. 5 justices in their 2010 Citizens United majority decision enshrined the oligarchy of big money as THE political arbitor in the US, and diminished the voices of the people and of democracy itself. When more than two parties are allowed equal access within the political system, there will be checks and balances to prevent the two party comraderie that has resulted in a fascist-leaning Supreme Court that rules in support of the wealthy.

The MN Green Party worked hard at the state legislature this year to have Move to Amend legislation passed. However, the DFL majority and super-majority houses failed to pass it. Why we need 3rd parties."


Minnesota: State House, District 07B

Erik Simonson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I believe that the more individual states are talking about this issue, the more opportunity the federal government will have to react. While it is true this is a federal matter, we all have to continue the push to change. So yes, in the Minnesota House we will continue to push the issue, at the very least keeping it a public discussion.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I disagree with the court on this decision.


Minnesota: State House, District 26A

Tina Liebling

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

No answer.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I oppose it.


Minnesota: State House, District 32A

Paul Gammel

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Eliminate super PACs, both sides have money but if people really want to do some good with there money I can think of many better choices than politics. Transparent reporting, good election policies, and laws that give people as much access to voting as possible.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am firmly against corporations being givens the rights of citizens. People get to vote, people get to run for office - corporations cannot do either. Therefore they should not have as large of impact on elections.


Minnesota: State House, District 35A

Peter Perovich

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

By bringing information to my District, through news letters, Public Town Hall meetings, email. Collaboration with my colleagues in both chambers.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I strongly oppose this decision. Fact I believe the judges violated the very essence of our constitution


Minnesota: State House, District 52B

Joe Atkins

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I have chief authored legislation to do so.  I expect to do so again in 2015, if re-elected.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

We need to fix what the Court's error.


Minnesota: State House, District 55B

Josh Ondich

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I would work with all sides to enact meaningful campaign finance reform at all levels like state and local elections. I would support sponsoring or co-sponsor a bill that would ratify this amendment. I as a candidate made a pledge not to accept political action committee contributions in my campaign for State Representative.  

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe Citizens United vs FEC in 2010 destroyed meaningful campaign finance laws that were enacted as early as the late 1940's. The effects of this ruling has made raising money and accepting special interest contributions become the focus on winning election instead of issues that affect the voter in their congressional or state legislative district. It hampers candidates that want to make meaningful reform in their communities.


Minnesota: State House, District 55B

Josh Ondich

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will co-sponsor or sponsor stricter campaign fiance laws that would limit the amount of donations a candidate can spend and receive in a general election period including primary election period like caps on spending in primary elections and general elections.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I find the Citizens United Decision appaling. Citizens United overturn decades of campaign financial reform laws that were in place to keep elections honest. I find it obsurb that a small group of special interest groups on all sides of the political spectrum can flood elections including state legislative race with ten thousands of dollars even in primaries alone inaddition to millions for Congress and US Senate seats. The electoral process has been demoralized by citizens united decision.


Minnesota: State House, District 59B

Raymond Dehn

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Author a bill for a resolution to congress to put forward an amendment to States.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Bad decision, congress needs to act.


Minnesota: State House, District 61A

Frank Hornstein

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will continue to be a strong advocate of campaign finance reform and limiting corporate power in elections.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I strongly disagree with this decision. I will continue to fight to overturn it.


Minnesota: State House, District 66B

John Lesch

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Oppose.


Minnesota: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Keith Ellison

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Economic inequality extends to political inequality when big money buys influence. This has a corrosive effect on our democracy and who we are as a people. For these reasons, I introduced the ‘Get Corporate Money out of Politics’ Constitutional Amendment in 2012. The amendment reaffirms the importance of a level playing field and authorizes Congress and the States to regulate election contributions of for-profit corporations. While protecting the freedom of the press, the amendment states that corporations are not people. Since then, I have supported several other constitutional amendments that would end the hold of big money and corporations on our elections.

Corporations do not vote, they do not serve in office, and they should not be able to buy our elections. Congressional candidates should rely on smaller donations, allowing ordinary Americans to take charge in elections. I support full-scale campaign finance reform to enhance transparency of contributions, give Congress more regulatory power, and empower citizens to take a more active role in the political process.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe that American citizens - not corporations or special interests - should determine the future of our country through the electoral process. The Citizens United decision was deeply flawed, overturned decades of precedent, and allows corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money with zero accountability. In effect, this decision puts our representative democracy up for auction to the highest corporate bidders.


Minnesota: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Rick Nolan

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I firmly believe we need to change the way we do politics in our country to end the corruptive influence of money in our elections and our political system. I have introduced a bill called the Restore Democracy Act, which is a seven-point blueprint, any piece of which would constitute major reform. I will continue to push for this bill and campaign to change the way we do politics.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

My Restore Democracy Act calls for overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Corporations are not 'people' and money is not 'free speech'.


Minnesota: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Ray Sandman

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

"I feel that I am well suited to work to bridge the divide between the two parties in order to form a coalition to forward legislation that would change the constitution to make clear that the only thing to be protected by the constitution is an individual, flesh and body, human being.

I would utilize the media to bring awareness to this issue and to build up a greater body of support to amend the constitution for this cause. I would be willing to meet with people of Move to Amend and be a supporting figure for their cause as well as learn more about what we can do together to Amend the constitution to end corporate person hood."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

"I feel clearly that something needs to be done to end the Supreme Court's streak of decisions enhancing the power of the wealthy to wield a disproportionate amount of power over the government that is supposed to be equally of and for the people.

We absolutely need to work to overturn the Citizen United Decision and work to reduce the amount of legislating from the bunch on behalf of large corporations and wealthy individuals that is happening in our times. . I find Citizen's United decision to be one of many reasons that the Supreme Court should be redesigned to have a limit on the amount of time a Justice can serve rather then be appointed for life. It is appalling that justices are crafting the legal landscape for industries that they have been a part of. I don't have all the answers, I am eager to work with people that have ideas for solutions."

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



MISSISSIPPI

Mississippi: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Doug Magee

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will introduce and support legislation to require corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I oppose the decision!!!


Mississippi: U.S. House of Representatives, District 04

Matt Moore

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am willing to support, promote, and if need be create legislation that supports amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I vehemently oppose the Supreme Court's Ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend the US Constitution- to establish the fact that money is not speech via campaign finance reform. Establishing that human beings, not corporations, are the persons entitled to constitutional right.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



MISSOURI

Missouri: State House, District 12

Sandy Van Wagner

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support legislation that provides ethic reforms that would prevent giant corporate contributions to polictical campaigns.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I do not support the Supreme Court's decision to allow large corporate campaign contributions. In order to protect our Republic and preserve our Democracy "For the People" we must have our elections limited to the people.


Missouri: State House, District 17

Mark Ellebracht

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Help to enact meaningful ethics reform for state elections.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I think the Decision is contrary to a well established Democracy, and that it tends to undermine to value and role of individuals in the democratic process.


Missouri: State House, District 29

John Sutton

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will propose legislation to limit public and private corporations contributions to be limited to $250. I think that most Voters will support this amendment to Missouri constitution. It is a shame that the Us congress doesn't propose the same change.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

We need to change the law to stop corporations and Political action committee's from buying our politicians. The supreme court did not make the correct decision. They should have listened to the American people, everyone I know thinks this was a poor decision. I was disgusted with our supreme court. 


Missouri: State House, District 35

Ken Duvall

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Given that the Citizens United decision cannot be changed except through amendment to the constitution, the only direct way for a state legislator to effect that change would be to push for the state legislature to call for a constitutional convention.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I disagree with the decision.  As retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens has said more eloquently than I could, the decision is bad law and bad policy.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



MONTANA

Montana: U.S. Senate

Roger Roots

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The greater danger is too much influence by government in politics.  Government, by its very nature, seeks to constantly expand its regulatory grasp and power to control.  Government officials--both elected and nonelected--have numerous "bully pulpits" with which to issue their government-expanding decrees and claims.  Money in politics is desparately needed to counteract such claims by government in many cases.  I will support freedom of speech and press in their broadest senses.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Citizens United was a good decision; not a great decision.  It is common sense that government does not have constitutional authority to ban books and videos.  The decision did not go far enough, however.  All (or virtually all) "campaign finance" regulation tends to infringe on the First Amendment.  The best remedy for bad speech is more speech.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



NEBRASKA

Nebraska: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Dennis Crawford

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will sponsor an amendment to overturn Citizens United.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.


Nebraska: U.S. Senate

Dave Domina

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

1. The 2 hostile Supreme Court decisions suggest strong Congressional findings of linkage between forbidden conduct and actual individual corruption will allow a law to pass constitutional scrutiny. I would propose and work for a law premised on and expressive of such linkage.

2. I would seek every reasonable opportunity to differentiate between people as citizens and persons with constitutional protections, and corporations as legal fictions created by people for business reasons.

3. I would support a constitutional amendment effort, and scrutinize Supreme Court judicial nominees  for their 1st Amendment campaign finance reform views.

4. I would, and do, model campaign finance reform in my own campaigns.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The case was decided incorrectly. Its holding is not justified by 1st Amend language, precedent, or well founded jurisprudence. People are, and can become, citizens. People vote. Corporations do not have temperatures, pulses, or even ideas... people do. Corporations also lack mouths, tongues, and brains. They can only employ such attributes of living things.

These pretty basic observations were apparently lost on five members of the Citizens United Court. 

Citizens United should be overruled in a promptly presented new case, and narrowed extensively by the Circuit Courts through sound judicial reasoning in the interim before it is overruled.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



NEVADA

Nevada: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Erin Bilbray

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I would support a Constitutional Amendment.   Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am against the decision.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE


NEW JERSEY

New Jersey: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

William Hughes

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support and co-sponsor any legislation that would further the cause of limiting the influence of money in the legislative process in Washington.  This would include any Constitutional Amendment that reverses the Citizens United decision and states that money is not speech and corporations are not people.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It should be reversed by legislation or by Constitutional Amendment.


New Jersey: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Roy Cho

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As a Member of Congress I will support legislative efforts to reform this broken system.  No options to fix the way we fund elections in this country can be off the table.   We need to think about capping spending on races. We need to bring third party private donors fostered under Citizen's United out into the light of day. We need to consider bringing down the amounts that corporations and individuals can give to any one candidate. We need to explore public funding options as well.

Our democracy is not for sale. As a Member of Congress I will, of course, advance a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision at every opportunity possible.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Fixing Washington has to start with what fuels it: money from special interests and the self-interested intent on getting their own way. Washington is more dysfunctional than ever because the voice of regular people is no longer being heard.

Recent rulings by the Supreme Court – specifically the controversial Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions – have severely exacerbated this problem. Special interests and self-interested donors are no longer limited in how much total money they can contribute to candidates and political parties in an election as a result of these decisions.

Fortunately, the public outcry regarding these rulings has not fallen on deaf ears. Sixteen states have already called for an amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and put everyday Americans back in charge of our democracy.

Elections must not be decided by how much a candidate can spend.

We need a “government of, by, and for the people,” not a government bought and paid for by big campaign contributions. It’s this fundamental: unless we reform campaign finance laws to put people first and allow democracy to flourish, things in Washington won’t change.


New Jersey: U.S. House of Representatives, District 07

Janice Kovach

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I have and will continue to speak out against anyone attempting to represent me or campaigning against me that hides behind the IEs and super PACs.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe the court defined the case a little too broadly and did not take into consideration the excessive amounts of money that would spent to win or lose elections and the disenfranchisement of individuals running for public office due to the inability to raise those same kind of dollars.  It made the field even more unbalanced.


New Jersey: U.S. House of Representatives, District 11

Mark Dunec

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will work in a collaborative way with colleagues and constituents discussing this problem in detail and coming up with common sense solutions to this problem. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Citizens United was Supreme Court’s Worst Ruling.


New Jersey: U.S. House of Representatives, District 12

Steven Welzer

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I'll promote and work toward passage of an amendment to the constitution.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It was a misguided ruling that must be reversed.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



NEW YORK

New York: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Tim Bishop

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am opposed to that decision. I voted for the passage of the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act which increases transparency of political spending.


New York: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Patricia Maher

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I think the first place to start is supporting a bill that would require full public disclosure of all political contributions, whether they be to political campaigns, PACs, 527s, interest groups and SuperPACs. Once that is achieved, then we can start the Amendment process to overturn Citizens United, as well as McCutcheon.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I oppose the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United elected, I will co-sponsor a Constitutional Amendment that would overturn it.


New York: U.S. House of Representatives, District 19

Sean Eldridge

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Right now the voices of everyday New Yorkers are being drowned out by special interests and corporate money in Washington. I have been a leader in the fight to reduce the power of special interests and money in politics to ensure that elected officials are accountable to us – not Big Oil and Big Banks.  I’m not accepting corporate PAC contributions in his campaign, so I’ll be accountable only to families in our region.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

In Congress, I will fight to overturn Citizens United and for campaign finance reform that increases transparency, reduces corruption, and amplifies the voices of everyday New Yorkers.


New York: U.S. House of Representatives, District 21

Matthew Funiciello

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am a Green with an actual and tangible possibility of being elected to office as I am running against two outsider candidates seeking to buy the seat. One is a very weak self-funding Democrat who will lose regardless of my run. The Republican is a Koch machine candidate who is too young to have a proper historical perspective on the people and agenda she's espousing. The working people of our district are fed up. As the first non-corporate congressional representative in recent history and the first Green elected to national office, I will have a brief bully pulpit with national media (Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Colbert, NY Times, Wall Street Journal and the like). I will be able to bring up issues like the MoveToAmend that speak to corporate rule and our collective desire to end it. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am against any precedent being set which suggests that corporations are people in the eyes of the law. I would make it mandatory that all prospective Supreme Court Justices watch "The Corporation" and write a six page finding based on said viewing. I would also foster legislation that required a majority of them not be corporate lawyers vetted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


New York: U.S. House of Representatives, District 23

Martha Robertson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina: State House, District 13

Jim Nolan

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The state of NC has a Republican majority who believe and follow the ideology of right wing Tea party nationals and I will at every chance espouse democratic ideals and bring truth to their fabrications and facts to their propaganda. NC has been a progressive state and I will help all Democrats in their election campaigns to unseat the radicals occupying Raleigh at the moment.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

President Obama said it perfectly when saying it was a worst decision than the Dred Scott decision, which was one of the contributing factors leading to a further separation of the states and eventually the Civil War. Corporations are not people and money is not speech for if so our country would indeed be an Oligarchy and I hope and pray that is not the case. We desperately need to guard against purveyors of such anti democratic thinking and by passing a Constitutional Amendment we can begin to set them straight and retake our democracy.


North Carolina: State House, District 16

Steve Unger

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Support public financing of campaigns.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Against


North Carolina: State House, District 42

Marvin Lucas

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will use public appearances and newsletters to publicize the danger of bias and distortion that is funded with little accountability.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I have problems with the decision because again, it etends to stymie objectivity of issues of public interest.


North Carolina: State House, District 56

Verla Insko

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I introduced a resolution in the 2011 and 2013 sessions of the NC General Assembly urging Congress to passing an amendment that would have to be ratified by the states. I oppose an Article V Constitutinal Convention.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on Citizen's United. 


North Carolina: State House, District 61

Ronald Weatherford

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I would like to see that no contributions can be made to political parties by corporations.  Workers in North Carolina should have health insurance from employers that does not limit their choices. Corporations are able to influence public policies through the use of PACS which need to curtailed.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am against this decision by the Supreme Court' because it strips women of the right to choose what is best for them as health decision.  This decision has the danger of giving corporations leeway in curtailing other rights.  Companies like Walmart make it impossible to organize to improve pay and address women's issues.


North Carolina: State House, District 62

Sal Leone

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The first thing is term limits so that someone does not stay in power long and this will limit the money they can spend on anyone for a long period of time. The next thing is limit corporate or PAC money, if you don't get money from the people than its not really about the people then, PAC money is special interest money. I have been funding my own election, if you take PAC money than in the end they will want something.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I don't agree with the idea that any company can have that much influence in politics and spend the money they want without limits. The problem with elections is that good candidates lose because they don't get support or money while others get purchased and do what the special interest group wants. There is no such thing as something for nothing.


North Carolina: State House, District 86

Jim Cates

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Continually speaking out against big spending to attain public office. This obviously denies many qualified individuals from seeking public office.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I do not consider a corporation as an individual.


North Carolina: State House, District 88

Margie Storch

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will advocate for public financing of elections and educate constituents and legislators about the importance of overturning Citizens United. I will work with individuals and organizations to reduce corporate power and big money's influence in our political system.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I agree with the The Supreme Court minority (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) who argued:

1. Our founders did not intend for corporations to have constitutional protections intended for individuals! The First Amendment protects only individual speech, not speech by associations of individuals.

2. Government may prevent corruption, and campaign spending can be corrupt when it buys influence over legislators. Therefore government may impose spending limits on corporations and unions.

3. Government may prevent the appearance of corruption, which undermines public confidence in democracy. Limits on corporate and union political spending are an expression of that authority.

4. The public has the right to hear all available information, and when corporations spend money individuals can’t match, messages from corporations drown out messages from others, and that information fails to reach the public.

Groups and individuals that have no well-funded sources (children, the poor, disabled, minorities, etc.) cannot compete with the unlimited spending of wealthy groups. Freedom of speech should mean the ability to persuade with the power of an idea, not the ability to unfairly dominate media through paid, repetitive messaging. Our democracy is being eroded by monied special interests!


North Carolina: State House, District 96

Cliff Moone

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will advocate publicly for such an amendment and urge my Congressperson to vote to amend.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I wholeheartedly agree with the words of Thomas Jefferson, that "the end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations. I furthermore agree with the sentiments of Representative Keith Ellison: "Corporations are not people. Money is not speech, and in America, democracy should never ever be for sale." Thus, it is incumbent upon each of us to resist the corporate dismantling of democracy at every opportunity. Citizens United must be overturned!


North Carolina: State House, District 114

Susan Fisher

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will introduce and have in the past biennium introduced with several of my state House colleagues a resolution supporting a constitutional amendment.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am opposed to this decision.  Corporations are not people and money is not speech.


North Carolina: State Senate, District 02

Carroll G. "Carr" Ipock II

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will work to ensure that individual citizens are heard, and that corporations are not considered "citizens".

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I consider the Citizen's United decision to be one of the worst affronts to our citizenry that has ever been ruled.  Only those with the right to vote should be recognized.


North Carolina: State Senate, District 31

John Motsinger

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As a state senator, I will speak out and support or introduce legislation to limit money in politics and, if a federal constitutional amendment comes up, support it. I will not support any amendment that tries to strip away constitutional rights and protections for corporations and other entities such as: warrantless searches and seizures; due process of law; equal protection of the laws; non-interference with contracts; rights to sue and be sued, and the like. The amendment should be limited to correcting the problem of excessive political influence by those with money.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe the Supreme Court went too far. The idea that a corporate entity or other association such as a union or a congregation, whether for-profit or nonprofit, constitutes a legal "person" for certain purposes was, in this case, illogically expanded to equate a legal person with an individual, natural person. I would support an amendment authorizing Congress and the states to enact reasonable laws and regulation on the spending powers of individuals and organizations on political causes.


North Carolina: State Senate, District 49

Terry Van Duyn

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

To start with, I believe we need to restore public funding for judicial races. I will work for that legislation.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The torrent of independent expenditure money has wreaked havoc with the electoral process and has resulted in widespread disillusion with government.


North Carolina: State Senate, District 49

Terry Van Duyn

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


North Carolina: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Arthur Rich

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

3.  As per question 2, I will be taking these actions.  Though corporations are composed of individuals, the corporation is a legal entity, not a person!  Corporate PACs were once equitably distributed but now reflect political leaning of management.  This leads to “implied intimidation” among “politically aware” employees.  Mega Million/Billion corporations could by way of this method, “lean” on dependent vendors/suppliers in the same manner.  The current US Senate Race in NC is a prime example of millions from Special Interests funding media ads for 2 candidates, while others from Congress thru local officials are dwarfed by this media and many state headquarters of one or both parties, are financially inhibited from little more than moral support; if that.  Spending as allowed by Citizens United, is not individual speech but rather, speech obtained by and through funding for the Special Interest of the Funder(s).

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

4.  My position on Citizens United decision is that it should be reviewed by a non-partisan group for compliance with Constitutional framers intent.  Another option would be a national referendum on this and possibly include citizen election of Supreme Court members with fixed terms of 4 years.  Presidential appointments are nothing more than seeking favorable representation on the court.  This bad-mouthing of candidates is indicative of a lack of substance or platform beneficial to citizens but directed toward contributor’s overt or implied wishes.


North Carolina: U.S. House of Representatives, District 04

Paul Wright

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The states and our senators, and congressmen are to represent us to government; not private corporations.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe the  Citizens's United decision should certainly be reversed. However it is also my opinion there is not a need for a national movement for another  amendment to our Constitution -  as Congress itself,  under Article III Section 2 of our Constitution, can by a simple majority vote  exclude the Supreme Court from the future  hearing any appeals dealing with corporate involvement in campaigns, state or federal.   (see Ex parte McCardle  74 US 506)

 I refer you to my website for more details on this PaulWrightforCongress.com.

Thank you for your efforts, by the way.


North Carolina: U.S. House of Representatives, District 09

Leon Ray

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I believe in strengthening direct democracy for a state and local referendums on the ballot on this issue.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The campaign finance must go into the state and local referendums that I support which is the people executive orders. Direct-democracy is the solution.


North Carolina: U.S. House of Representatives, District 10

Tate MacQueen

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The Citizens United decision threatens our democratic-republic. Our electoral process should not be ceded to the highest corporate bidders. As a member of Congress, I will work with other representatives to pass legislation to counter the Citizens United decision. I will support ratification of a Constitutional Amendment to end corporate constitutional rights and I will continue to lend my voice publicly in opposition to Citizens United.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I adamantly oppose the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. I am committed to ending corporate constitutional rights. I do not believe that corporate campaign contributions equate to the First Amendment provisions for citizens to engage in free speech.


North Carolina: U.S. Senate

Sean Haugh

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I do not believe a Constitutional amendment is required. Congress already has the Constitutional authority to regulate corporations and campaign spending. They just need to grow a spine and do it. I have a video on this topic on my website seanhaugh.com and on my youtube channel.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Just because the Supreme Court says bribery is now legal doesn't mean it's not still bribery.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



OHIO

Ohio: Governor

Anita Rios

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Everything I can, including supporting and initiating citizen initiatives to declare that corporations are not people and that money is not speech. Here in Ohio there is a checkoff on the income tax forms that allow people to donate to political campaigns. That checkoff only allows donations to the two major parties, I would seek to expand it to the minor parties as well. This would strengthen public funding for elections.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I feel that the court's decision was absurd and an effort to pervert the ideal of one person one vote.


Ohio: Hamilton County Commissioner

Sean Feeney

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

By passing resolutions in support of action at state and federal levels to overturn Citizens United and publicly finance elections, creating a level playing field for all voices in our democracy.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Corporations are not people, my friend.


Ohio: State House, District 20

Heather Bishoff

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I see my role in office as one that allows taxpayer access to Ohio's services, information and resources. I don't care what party you are. I do care that you have the facts.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Campaign finance reform (contribution limits, transparency and accountability) seems off in the distance as a possibility. Bans in Ohio have been lifted on lying in campaigns. Donors have unlimited access to election outcomes via their anonymous spending.


Ohio: State House, District 22

David Leland

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Since there was no opportunity to comment on the first question, I want to make sure that my answer is understood to only cover issues concerning campaign spending issues by corporations. I would advocate a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizen's United

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

See above.


Ohio: State House, District 23

Rick Redfern

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will work to be sure the Ohio House supports a Constitutional amendment that says that corporations are not people.  I will bring a bill with that language to the floor of the Ohio House and will work to get it passed.  I will bring that bill every session until it is passed for the good of the people of the state of Ohio.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I have a Move to Amend sign in my back window at home.

I think the Citizens’ United decision was scurrilous and based on faulty law if you understand the history of corporate personhood.  My wife has stamped her money with the “Money is not speech” stamp.  We’re proud to support Move to Amend.


Ohio: State House, District 40

David Richards

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Try to expand voting in the state.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It sucked. Dred Scott was property and now corporations are people.  Sucks the big wazoo.


Ohio: State House, District 73

Dave Ogan

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

All a state representative candidate can use is the bully pulpit,when denouncing dark money.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

See WHIO TV or Dayton Daily News' voter guide.


Ohio: State House, District 79

Darrell Jackson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I believe if you make districts more competitive, politicians will have to work for the people, not for the money.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I agree with Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme court made a grave mistake in Citizens United.


Ohio: State House, District 80

Jonathan  Michalski

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will use my position to argue against corporate money in politics. More people need to speak out in favor of this and get the public's attention.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe that the Supreme Court made a grave mistake. We need campaign finance laws to make sure that the electoral system isn't corrupted by money and greed. Also, we need to guarantee that the needs of the people are not ignored and their voice is being heard.


Ohio: State Senate, District 19

Neil Patel

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Supporting regulations on campaign spending along with this amendment.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Supreme Court may have had good constitutional grounds to rule the way they did. I am not a constitutional expert. But, an amendment would obviously overrule them.


Ohio: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Robert  Fry

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

We must have campaign finance reform. The loop holes created to bypass the intent of a fair election, and honest giving must be closed, and rules re-written.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The were wrong, a corporation has no conscience, they only have a for profit mentality. That injection into our political system can not and will not help the people of America, Corporations do not see people, their goal is different, their actions have no mercy.


Ohio: U.S. House of Representatives, District 06

Dennis Lambert

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Firstly, I will not accept donations from corporate entities for any political campaign. Secondly, I will tirelessly advocate that we overturn Citizens United and McCutcheon and develop and institute laws that state that money isn't speech and that political campaign contributions should be limited. Third, I will petition all lawmakers to stop taking donations from corporations as well as pass legislation that prevents corporations from perverting our political system and ruining our government with their contributions to individual candidates.

We cannot expect to vote for a new Democrat or new Republican for ANY office and expect change in the system. They are too tied to and rely too much on keeping the status quo.

We cannot expect corporations to have our best interests at heart. In the same vein, as we cannot trust the two major parties to have our country’s best interests at heart because their reliance on corporate donations. Corporations already have enough representation from lobbyists and the Democrats and Republicans, it is time we have are REAL option in the elections. It is time that the over 50% of Americans who say they are independent to come out and vote for third-party and independent candidates. In years when voter turnout is expected to be low, like 2014, we can wrest control of our government from the parties who want to destroy America from the inside.

A difference can only be made when we #GoGreen2014

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The development of the case behind Citizens United has been growing for decades. The Democrats and Republicans have worked together to see that there is no challenge to their stranglehold on the democratic process. The legitimization of their monopolistic control of all branches of government has been made complete with the SCOTUS decision that money is equal to speech, with the full knowledge that the Democrats and Republicans are the beneficiaries of all the corporate donations to PAC or campaigns.

The changing laws for non-profits, changes in the FCC Equal Time and Fair Play rules, along with the increase of wealth at the upper tiers of American society are just a minor symptom of the failure of the American people to vote in elections. The extremist elements of the Democrats and Republicans have created such a harmful environment for anyone to run in any election, it is a Sisyphean task for independent candidates to get any recognition.

I fully believe that three of five judges on the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Citizens United and McCutcheon should have recused themselves from participating in the decision due to a conflict of interest. If elected, I would like to pass legislation that holds the SCOTUS to a higher standard than they are holding themselves to and pass a Constitutional Amendment, if need be, to allow Congress to recall a Supreme Court Judge for acts unbecoming a Supreme Court Judge and force disclosure from the judges of activities relating to cases they hear.


Ohio: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Tom Poetter

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Corporate constitutional rights are just the tip of the iceberg, and if elected, I would move to amend the Constitution of the United States of America to define a human being as the only entity that has constitutional rights bestowed by that document.  Beyond that, I would move for public financing of elections and cap all individual donations to political campaigns, and I would certainly advocate the end of all donations from corporations to political campaigns. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

There is a question that is never asked, and it is a shame because it is the only question that matters.  If money equals speech, then what does lack of money equal?  Lack of speech?


Ohio: U.S. House of Representatives, District 12

Bob Hart

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will actively seek out and work with any member of Congress who puts the interests and needs of the people and our country before the interests and needs of their political party or the corporations that fund their campaigns. Congress is paralyzed because the two major parties have gerrymandered districts to ensure that over 80% of those districts are permanently occupied by one party of the other, thus no one needs to compromise or get anything done in order to be re-elected. To end the distorting and undemocratic manipulation of Congressional elections I will advocate for an end to the gerrymandering of congressional districts. In order to end the corrupting influence of big money on Congress I will call for a constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not people with constitutional rights and that money is not speech under the first amendment.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

As an attorney I found the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to be fundamentally at odds with the constitution and major tenets of representative democracy, including equality under the law and equal protection. Citizens United needs to be repealed but that will only happen in response to a populist movement of citizen activists dedicated to the proposition that Congress should represent people not corporations. If money is speech then speech is no longer free. In order to end the corrupting influence of big money on Congress I will call for a constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not people with constitutional rights and that money is not speech under the first amendment.


Ohio: U.S. House of Representatives, District 14

David Macko

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I do not believe that the God-given Constitutionally guaranteed rights of Americans and lawful guests to donate to or support or oppose candidates and issues of their choice should be limited by their membership in corporations, unions, churches or any other organizations. The best way to discourage the buying of candidates is to reduce the government to its constitutional limitations so that it will be much less worthwhile to purchase candidates or office holders. The Constitution was designed to limit the government. Those amendments which limited people, such as the Income Tax Amendment and Prohibition, proved to be disastrous. I am concerned about corporations since they are immortal and do not feel pain as well as labor unions which have been granted excessive unconstitutional powers by the federal government. These should be removed without restricting our rights. The concept of limited liability needs to be carefully scrutinized and, probably, altered by this should not be done until we get out of the depression by repealing the Federal Income Tax, abolishing the Federal Reserve System and restoring honest gold and silver money and impeaching Barack Obama for trying to sabotage our economy by Obamacare and many other unconstitutional measures.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United Decision did not go far enough. All federal laws which limit persons from supporting or opposing candidates or issues or which force them to reveal themselves publicly thereby sometimes suppressing their desire to participate politically should be repealed. All federal, state and local ballot access laws which prevent alternate parties and candidates from participating in elections should be repealed. With more competition there would be less incentive for anyone to buy Congressmen or other public officials. Several recent elections have proven that it is difficult to buy elections. I recall two female candidates in California spent over $100 million each on their campaigns and still lost. Former mayor Bloomberg of New York City appears to be failing in his effort to disarm the American people, despite the huge amount of money which he has poured into this effort. If the people are informed the power of money can be diminished without restricting our God-given Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech  and honest elections.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma: U.S. Senate

Aaron DeLozier

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will NOT end it and will fight to protect freedom of speech.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I fully support it and would not seek to amend it. I would also hope that the Supreme Court not revisit the ruling.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



OREGON

Oregon: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Jeffrey Langan

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Corporations are made up of a group of individuals, and are not a single individual. Therefore they do not have the right to be considered an individual.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am against the decision because it favors unfair candidate support.


Oregon: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Michael Meo

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will represent the citizens of my District, not its corporate interests.  Government is instituted to provide for their needs, not those of Capital.  I will speak at every opportunity to uphold human as opposed to corporate rights.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

That decision is the equivalent for our century of the Dred Scott decision -- wrong, destructive, and bound to be overturned by an empowered citizenry.


Oregon: U.S. House of Representatives, District 04

Mike Beilstein

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I advocate public financing of campaigns, and mandatory free time on licensed broadcast media for all candidates.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

This decision reversed a tradition of the Court in supporting the constitutionality of restrictions on financing of election campaigns.  It has essentially made the elections a commodity controlled by the media corporations and their owners. It has destroyed democracy in the US.


Oregon: U.S. House of Representatives, District 04

Peter DeFazio

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The Constitution guarantees us a government by the people, and for the people, but the current campaign finance system has eroded that principle. In the four years since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, we've seen a surge in campaign spending from special interest groups. Total spending from outside groups in the 2012 election cycle tripled 2008′s total and topped $1 billion for the first time ever. It's hard to see how billions of dollars spent on 30-second ads leads to better governance.

The amount of money spent on elections is corrupting the political system, forcing candidates to spend more and more time raising money, deterring those without personal fortunes from attempting to run, and leaving the impression that campaigns are bought and sold. We must return to strict limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, in order to ensure a citizen legislature that's in touch with everyone, not just the wealthy elite.

 I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 20, the Government By the People Act, which balances out the special interest influence by giving ordinary Americans a bigger voice. The bill gives Americans a tax credit for small political contributions. This will encourage more people to give, diluting the power of special interests. Next, the bill matches the small contribution with generous matching funds, taking away the money advantage of special interests. The State of Oregon already offers a tax credit for small dollar donations, and Congress should follow Oregon in its lead to curtail special interest politics.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision was an over-reaching partisan 5-4 ruling that overturned one hundred years of campaign law. This alarming decision opened the flood gates to unrestricted special interest campaign donations in American elections. The undue influence that free spending corporations now have on elected officials is overwhelming. Of even greater concern, the ruling allows this unlimited spending to take place with no transparency. Under the ruling big corporations could buy millions of dollars worth of television advertisements without revealing who is actually paying for them. The public has no way of knowing if the backers are BP, GM, or a Wall Street bank. It could even be a company owned by a foreign government; we won't know.

I am currently a co-sponsor of two proposed Constitutional Amendments to overturn the judicial over-reach of Citizens United.  H.J.RES. 20 is a constitutional amendment that gives Congress and the states the power to regulate campaign financing. H.J.RES. 34 is a constitutional amendment that restores the rights of the American people that were taken away by the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and blocks corporate personhood.


Oregon: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Kurt Schrader

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I have been in the forefront of the fight for campaign finance reform. I introduced Campaign Finance Reform H.J.Res.32, a constitutional amendment to give Congress control of regulating campaign finance and independent expenditures that influence elections. I will continue to be an advocate and leader in the movement to keep big money out of politics.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I do not believe that corporations should be treated as people. Congress and the states have a right to regulate election contributions and expenditures.


Oregon: U.S. Senate

Christina  Lugo

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will push for an end to Citizens United through a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision.  I will support public campaign financing to allow ordinary people besides millionaires and big corporations to run for or influence federal elections.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United decision follows in a long and venerable tradition of Supreme Courts gaffs including Plessy vs Ferguson, Dred Scott and Bush vs Gore.  Citizens United proudly shows that the Supreme Court isn't afraid to stand up for corporations and the one percent.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Robert Brady

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Joining several other members of the House of Representatives, we introduced H.R. 5175 - The DISCLOSE Act: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act. This bill includes common sense provisions that restore the individual voter to the position of prominence in the American election system.  It requires that CEOs stand by the ads funded through their corporate treasuries, expands disclosure requirements and prohibits foreign countries and companies from exercising influence in the funding of U.S. elections.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

In a 5-4 decision, a divided Supreme Court overturned nearly 100 years of campaign finance law and allows big business to directly fund political messages. The decision puts corporations on an equal level with individuals in exercising Freedom of Speech rights and puts U.S. elections up for sale to the highest bidder. The American people – not Wall Street or foreign nationals– should decide who wins these next elections.


Pennsylvania: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Alanna Hartzok

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

There are several proposals for Campaign Finance Reform posted on my campaign website. I will sponsor,co-sponsor or sign-on to any of these approaches and work hard for ones most likely to pass. I will also work for transparency for SUPER PACs at the very least until we can get the big money out of politics. I will draw attention to and work to reverse the original "corporate personhood" Supreme Court decision dating from Santa Clara County versus the Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and point out that this was a case regarding property taxation with the railroad refusing to pay. I will work to to collect full resource rents of land and natural resources in lieu of taxation on wage labor and productive capital - the "commons rent" rather than burdening the "real economy."

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It has permitted unlimited Super PAC expenditures for or against political candidates. Because there of the enormous wealth inequality in the US, this ruling gave vastly disproportionate power to the wealthiest individuals and corporations over the political process thus threatening democratic governance itself. We must work for a  constitutional amendment to abolish corporate constitutional rights while we also work for a fair economy and economic democracy.


Pennsylvania: U.S. House of Representatives, District 17

Matt Cartwright

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will Cosponsor efforts to do this.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Must be overturned.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Harold Geddings

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The single biggest obstacle to meaningful reform in Washington is the torrent of corporate money now flooding our political system.  Our current campaign finance system amounts to little more than legalized bribery. Thus, I have been speaking out at every opportunity about the need for a 28th Amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling, and if elected, I will loudly support any effort to overhaul the system.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United ruling was the nail in the coffin of American democracy. All men may be created equal, but now that money equals free speech, billionaires and the well-funded special interests that represent them are now more equal than the rest of us. Since I could not afford to buy a Congressman, this ruling forced to run for office myself to represent everyone else in this country whose voices have been silenced by the tsunami of corporate cash this ruling unleashed.


South Carolina: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Barbara Jo Mullis

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

co-sponsor legislation to require transparency for donors

raise issue at constituent forums

lead by example--don't take dark money

vote for the amendment

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It is a disaster for democracy; it undermines the concept of one person one vote.

It shifts the accountability of a legislator from their constituents to their donors.

It validates to the rest of the world that money is power.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



SOUTH DAKOTA

South Dakota: U.S. Senate

Rick  Weiland

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

When we take social studies in elementary school the very first thing we learn about our American right to free speech is that it must protect all except the very most dangerous speech, the kind where someone yelling fire in a crowded theater steals away our rights through the exercise of his or her own.

When billionaire Sheldon Adelson yells vote for whatever I want in his billion dollar voice, how can it conceivably be said this does not drown out South Dakota citizens’ ten dollar voices and jeopardize their freedoms?

In my opinion there is no threat to democracy nearly the equal of the threat posed by big money today. That threat is identical to every other threat history has thrown at Democracy because it is a threat to our equality at the ballot box. And if history has shown us anything it is that, when your voice is lost, your rights will soon follow.

That is why I believe the line of Supreme Court decisions which includes Citizens United, the McCutcheon case, and which will doubtless soon include others, is so dangerous.  By limiting the democratic voices of Americans who are not fabulously wealthy it stands in infamy alongside Dred Scott, Plessy, Minor, Korematsu and the handful of other dreadful decisions in which the Supreme Court has limited the rights of a particular group of people, and in so doing struck at the equality of opportunity to be heard that underpins democracy.

That is why the first bill I will introduce, which is on the back of my business card, is a constitutional amendment that reads: “So that the votes of all, rather than the wealth of the few, shall direct the course of this Republic, Congress shall have the power to limit the raising and spending of money with respect to federal elections…”

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

In my opinion, there is no greater threat to democracy today than Big Money in the wake of Citizens United. That threat is identical to every other threat history has thrown at Democracy because it is a threat to our equality at the ballot box. And if history has shown us anything it is that, when your voice is lost, your rights soon follow. The simple fact is the only way we can put government back on the side of everyday folks, and not big corporations, is to overturn the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



TENNESSEE

Tennessee: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Bob Scott

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will try to get term limits for congressmen.

I will try to have corporations not have the rights of people.

I will seek laws that require public corporations to get stockholder approval for political expenditures and for top executive compensation.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It is a terrible decision.


Tennessee: U.S. House of Representatives, District 06

Mike Winton

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The office of Congress is to be and only used to represent the people of our District, State and Country. I will not receive or allow any corporate pac monies to be used in or torward my campaign.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.I oppose this decision and will fight to get overturned.


Tennessee: U.S. House of Representatives, District 07

Lenny Ladner

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The first thing I will do is to propose a bill that will eliminate the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC is designed to keep the little guy (like me) from running for office. And keep the fat cats who can afford high priced lawyers to run for office. 

We can't get any reform until we get rid of these professional politicians.

The other thing I will do is to look at the bills that I'm going to vote on.  I will judge those bills by asking a question.  That question is, "If this bill passes will it increase the size, cost, extend the reach or power of the government?"  If that bill does any of those things I WILL VOTE NO FOR THOSE REASONS.  We have too much government already.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

My position on this and other cases that have gone before the Supreme Court is as follows.

One it seems that the Court has had a history of deciding cases which do nothing more than give the Federal Government powers that it doesn't have.  It also seems that if a patriotic American is suing his case is turned away at the door by these law clerks who decide which cases are heard.

Now who picks the law clerks?

The misuse of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be handled if a Congressman would insert the following into each and every bill, "The House of Representatives votes to take away the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in any and all matters concerning________"

That will stop this march to dictatorship using the avenue of the judicial branch.


Tennessee: U.S. Senate

Edmund Gauthier

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Any way I possibly could!! I would intoduce legislation, I would lobby fellow Senators and Congressmen, I would make direct appeals to the people of the great state of Tennessee and the people of this country via television, internet, newspapers, periodicals, any form of media that would listen to me, to garner public support! This madness HAS TO STOP! We the People MUST regain control of our elected officals and OUR government!

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Something else that We the People need to amended in the constitution is the life-time terms of the Supreme Court. Not only are elected PARTY officials bought and paid for, but their partners in crime, the Supreme Court, are too! Hell, their not even trying to hide the fact they have high-jacked the United States Government for their own personal  gains.....and for those corporations, foriegn lobbies, and super PAC"S that own them!

Greed is a powerfull thing folks, and when a small group of people pocess that much power and profit from the majority, nothing good will come of it!! We the People must restore the Republic......We the People must retore sanity!

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



TEXAS

Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Paul Blair

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

support and champion any legitimate legislation which calls for an amendment or laws which end corporate constitutional rights.  I will never accept any money or favor for my campaign from corporate sources.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I do not agree with it.  But, since the court will always be susceptible to political influence, the only way to keep interested money out our election process is to amend the US Constitution to clarify the matter.  Campaign money is not the only place where giving a corporation the rights of the individual without the responsibility of the individual, results in inequities in countless situations.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Ken Ashby

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Corporations are already prohibited from contributing to federal candidates. I will oppose any effort to allow government officials and politicians to further silence their critics.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I suuport the decision to uphold the First Amendment rights of everyone, individually and collectively, to freely criticize their government, its policies and powerful politicians.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 06

Hugh Chauvin

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support bills to limit corporate involvement in campaign contributions.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe the court opinion is wrong and basically legislating from the bench.  I do not believe justices should be appointed for life, but appointed for specific terms of around 18 to 20 years at which time they should be retired.  This would require a constitutional amendment.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 07

Gerald Fowler

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I believe that corporations, and other artificial entities, are creations of the state, and as such, are able to be regulated in any reasonable manner that the state which created them determines to be in the best interest of its people.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United Decision is clearly wrong for the reason explained above.  I also believe that people have the right to pool their resources for the purpose of engaging in political speech.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 10

Bill Kelsey

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I agree with the sentiment behind the Move to Amend.  In fact I am not raising any funds for my own campaign.  However I would prefer that the change happen through the spontaneous response of an educated and enlightened electorate.  The people can and should make the choice to reject candidates who receive massive amounts of corporate funding.  We do not need more laws, enforcement agents, government functionaries, or regulators.  Nor should the people have to contribute to anyone's campaign through their taxes.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It is a quarrel between thieves.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 14

John Wieder

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

By supporting an amendment to our constitution and changing our election finance laws to make it equal for all candidates and eliminate campaign contributions all together.  I would move the capital of the United States to Missouri and bring all our federal elected officials back to their own states so lobbyist will no longer be in control of our government. The voting would be done electronically and all members of congress would meet as prescribed in our constitution.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It allowed unions and corporations to make massive donations to campaigns and we need to have our constitution amended to end this travesty and also a couple of others as well.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 16

Beto O'Rourke

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am an original co-sponsor of Government by the People Act (H.R. 20), a bill that encourages representatives to finan. ce their campaigns with small dollar donations rather than relying on PACs and big money, and the Real Time Transparency Act (H.R. 4442), a bill that requires candidates to disclose contributions of more than $1,000 within 48 hours of receiving the contribution. I have also co-sponsored H.J. Res 20 and H.J. Res 119, both of which propose constitutional amendments that would overturn decisions like Citizens United and restore the ability of Congress to regulated the raising and spending of money in elections. As a candidate, I am trying to prove the concept put forward in the Government by the People by trying to raise $123,200 in 24 hours in amounts less than $200 to prove that everyday citizens can compete with special interests in politics. The event is called Powered-by-People and it starts on October 9.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Our system of financing campaigns was already terrible, this just made it worse. In other words, if we reserved Citizens United, we would still have a lot of work to do. We need a comprehensive overhaul of our campaign finance laws and a constitutional amendment to protect the public's interests.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 16

Jaime O. Perez

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will promote libertarian independent ideas and candidates.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I strongly oppose this decision.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 20

Jeffrey Blunt

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Efforts at campaign finance reform legislation have never worked, and never will.  Those with money will always find away around the laws.  Any Constitutional Amendment will fail just as legislation has failed.

Therefore, I propose allowing people to spend as much of their money as they wish on politics, but requiring full disclosure from the candidate of where his/her money is coming from.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

If my proposal to allow citizens the freedom to choose to spend their money as they see fit comes to fruition, the "Citizens United" decision will be rendered irrelevant.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 22

Frank Briscoe

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will take every opportunity to return transparency to the funding of political activities, and will work to limit the ability of Super PACs to financially influence our electoral system. In particular, I will try to disassemble the machinery of corporate influence that has many of its roots here in TX Congressional District 22. I believe much of the antagonism and lack of cooperation that characterizes our current political environment was fostered by former TXCD 22 Representative Tom DeLay. DeLay was exceedingly effective at extracting contributions and funding from local -- and even national -- corporate interests. Many of these contributions and funds were then distributed among state representatives throughout the nation during redistricting exercises, resulting in the highly polarized U.S. Congress we have today.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Recently President Obama observed that with the Citizens United decision it is possible for 200 of the wealthiest people in this country to determine who will become president – in every Presidential election cycle from now on. He estimated that as few as five people could determine who would be nominated by their respective political parties. His conclusion was “And that’s just not right.”  That’s my conclusion, too. It’s not what generations of my family have gone to war to defend, and it’s not what drives us to participate in civic affairs. If 200 people can speak for 130,000,000 voters it would mean each of the 200 were taking the words out of the mouths of more than 650,000 voters. Citizens United was wrongly decided. Free Speech is for individuals.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 22

Rob Lapham

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Had you included labor unions I would be more inclined to give serious consideration to your proposed amendment.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Works for me.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 24

Mike Kolls

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Good ideas do NOT require force (coercion by government). The incumbent has a $500,000-plus war-chest from 4 terms - this is before starting this election cycle. I cannot compete with his funds or the machinery of a dominant party.  Office seekers should be selected based on principled positions and sound points of public policy. I have better ideas and a track record in private industry. I will continue to talk about the issues by focusing on reducing the size, scope, and reach of the bloated federal head.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Money should not be able to BUY an office of influence with an office holder. The Supreme Court has unfortunately tied campaign donations to free speech. From a practical standpoint, I do not see government enforcing any provision that will limit contributions. If it did happen, it would become the fox guarding the hen house, a greater enticement for more corruption. The general population has to "get good and mad" at our current oligarchy. There has to be a (hopefully peaceful) revolution to reintroduce WE THE PEOPLE back into governance. We can each vote for smaller government.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 24

Patrick McGehearty

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Corporations are a fiction created by national laws and were never intended to be protected by the Bill of Rights. At a minimum, we need to remove the veil of secrecy that these shell corporations provide for big money donors. People deserve to know the source of funds for political attack ads.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I oppose the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision. It shows a naive understanding by the court of how money works in our national politics.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 30

Max Koch

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 32

Frank Perez

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will put America first, not special interest. I will work hard to seek common ground for the benefit of our great nation as a whole, not the benefit of a few. I pledge to work tirelessly to seek common ground for the passage of legislation that will benefit all Americans.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Limiting cronyism by enacting legislation to address the Citizens United decision is very important to our democracy. Unlimited campaign contributions by corporations are bad for our democracy, as our political action groups that mask the identities and campaign contributions of campaign donors.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 35

Kat Swift

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

support MtA's amendments, seek to revoke corporate charters of those corporations who violate the public good, vote against any justices, or other Presidential appointees, who are beholden to corporations, call for electoral reforms that will give us democracy (see votekat.org) including public-funding of elections and campaigns

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

it was a travesty to the notion of "We the People" and a government by and for the people. yet, to be expected from a bunch of justices beholden to corporations.


Texas: U.S. House of Representatives, District 36

Hal Ridley, Jr.

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I’ll need more than 250 words but, the hard work of Move to Amend, Public Citizen, The Green Party, Wolf-Pac and others are making some progress, yet that progress is not enough and our time to bring dramatic change is running out.  Our political system is not built for change it’s build to stop change and it’s working very well. 

Those who own the government will not allow change until it’s too late which it may already be.  Political change is hard because for example a majority of the elderly are opposed to government run health care even though they are on Medicare. They are easy to mislead and easier to confuse.  Political Mass Movements do make change through hard sacrifice but powerful moneyed interests erase that change with five old black robes in cases like Citizens United because most people don’t know the citizens in that case are corporate citizens not human citizens. That case and others like it have given corporations more rights to citizenship without any responsibilities.  We don’t need to amend the Constitution, we need to rewrite from scratch.  By bypassing the Congress, the Courts and the Executive with a full Constitutional Convention to explicitly and solely strengthen broaden and apply the Bill of Rights to every human citizen, end corporate personhood, end money as speech, put term limits on all government offices and also eliminate several of the places in government where a small band of expletives can veto the entire process.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

 The Citizens United case has taken away the restrictions on corporations, unions and non profits to fund electioneering and inject large amounts of money into the electoral process, much of it hidden. These groups and this money is sometimes able to buy the election of candidates who will then do the bidding for those who have put them in power.  It’s wholesale corrupt bribery of the political process.  That influence has always been present but now it’s paramount. 

The fact that our politicians are bought and paid for is quite obvious in their actions.  Many voters often a majority are manipulated with misinformation, disinformation or propaganda into voting against their own interests.  Citizens United allows for greater subversion of our political process, so you get what you vote for. Corporate Citizenship goes back to the Santa Clara-V-Southern Pacific Railroad case in 1886 when the court reporter interjected the idea of corporate personhood into the footnotes, it wasn’t even part of the case.  Corporations then used the 14th Amendment to claim personal rights, until now they have more rights than we do. When Mitt Romney was asked about corporate personhood he said “Corporations are people my friend”.

He was wrong on both counts, first Republicans don’t believe corporations are people, they believe corporations are gods and second that guy was not his friend.  If corporations are people then they should be executed for the longest ongoing criminal conspiracy in history.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



UTAH

Utah: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Craig Bowden

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

First and foremost, I will lead by example by pledging to never take money from any source other than the Libertarian Party and individuals donating to my campaign. I have pledged to push for limiting money in campaigns; I have pledged to help pass a Constitutional amendment; I have pledged that I will pass and promote legislation that puts the government accountable to the people of the United States.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am against this ruling. Corporations are not people. If a CEO wishes to donate, he or she may do so as an individual to support a candidate. 


Utah: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Bill Barron

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will promote the need to amend the U.S. Constitution and stand for limitations in campaign spending.  We must end corporate personhood.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe the 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision was a severe blow to what democracy should be.  Spending should not be speech, especially if the speaker is a corporation. 


Utah: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Shaun McCausland

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will campaign to end PACs, SuperPACs, Corporate purchase of candidates and any other system that destroys the ability of the American people to hear from all the candidates Right now, the only ones being heard are those will massive amounts of money or major party affiliation (which is basically the same thing). Let's have real citizens represent us instead of professional politicians.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It needs to be overturned - by legislation if possible - by amendment if necessary.


Utah: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Ben Mates

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will sponsor and/or support legislation to forbid or drastically restrict the ability of non-human entities to participate financially in our political system. I will introduce legislation to hold corporations accountable for their use of and damage to the commons upon which all of life depends - to charge them for their impact on living systems and human communities.  I support the creation of corporate entities such as B (for benefit) Corporations that are required to internalize social and environmental costs and consider impact on human communities and the environment in the calculation of their bottom line

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe that the Citizens United decision does not serve the long-term interests of the citizens of the United States for a fair and representative democracy. By allowing the unlimited exercise of corporate financial power in election campaigns, it prevents citizens from having an equal voice in their government. The common citizen's ability to stand for the common good in the long-term is distorted and overtaken by short-term, profit-driven corporate interests. It should be overturned by any legal political means available, including a subsequent Supreme Court decision, legislation by our representatives, and/or a Constitutional Amendment.


Utah: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Stephen Tryon

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am not accepting campaign donations and have pledged not to accept donations at any time while in office.  I will continue to work on educating the public so they bring pressure on their elected officials, and as an elected official, I will not miss an opportunity to support meaningful campaign finance reform measures aimed at reversing the Citizens United decision.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Supreme Court's logic in the Citizens United argument was deeply flawed.  Campaign finance should be regulated.  Spending money is not the same thing as constitutionally protected speech.  We have unequal abilities to spend money on politics, but the Constitution guarantees us an equal right to free speech.  Therefore, campaign finance laws should seek to equalize the amount of money available for candidates and incumbents to conduct their campaigns. 


Utah: U.S. House of Representatives, District 04

Timothy  Aalders

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I would propose new legislation and try and garner support to limit lobbyist and big business from utilizing the pay to play system that exists among Congress currently. I would propose new limits on campaign financing and donations from outside a representatives district. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I would support legislation like Democracy for All Amendment (S.J. Res 19), a joint resolution that would amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United and related cases.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



VERMONT

Vermont: U.S. House of Representatives

Matthew Andrews

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I support public funding for elections so candidates are not depending on endless fundraising from wealthy donors.  One of my first activities in politics was to support the Clean Elections Law which was passed by a citizen's referendum in Massachusetts in 1998.  Election day ought to be a national holiday so working people can vote.  I would also move to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act which limits our rights to collective action in the workplace and allows companies to intimidate workers that may wish to choose union representation.  I would re-introduce the portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that were recently overturned due to their targeted application to southern states.  Gerrymandering and racially biased voter supression happens in the north as well!  The Federal oversight created by the Voting Rights Act ought to be applied to all states.  This would make it constitutional as well.  Finally, I would support public funding to print and broadcast equal information on all ballot qualified cadidates.  The presidentia debates should be sponsored by an independent and neutral organization that will not exclude popular independent candidates.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United was a shameful act of judical activism.  Allowing unlimited independent expenditures during elections means that corporations, which only represent enormous concentrations of wealth, can drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.  I am also opposed to the Buckley v. Valeo decision (1976) which overturned overall campaign spending caps.  Money is not speech.  The Supreme Court must allow Congress to create a balanced elections system.  Just as we say "one person, one vote" we must also say "every voice counts" and "money is not merit."


Vermont: U.S. House of Representatives

Cris Ericson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

END CAMPAIGN FINANCE MONEY LAUNDERING, FOR EXAMPLE, CAMPAIGN FINANCES

MONEY LAUNDERING USED TO RAISE PRESCRIPTION DRUG  PRICES

 (1) U.S. Congress votes to give 30 Billion taxpayer dollars  a year to the National Institute of Health (N.I.H.).

 (2) The N.I.H.  gives  Billions to pharmaceutical corporations for research,  design and development of  new   prescription drugs  and medical  devices.

 (3) The  pharmaceutical corporations sell the drugs  and devices, and  keep all the profit.

 (4) The pharmaceutical corporations then give millions, out of the billions, to lobbyists who wine and dine members of U.S. Congress.

 (5) High paid employees of the pharmaceutical corporations  put money into Political Action Committees  ( PACs) which  put money into the campaign funds of politicians  in the U.S. Congress. 

Cris  Ericson calls this campaign finance money laundering because your taxpayer dollars have come full circle and ended up   in the million dollar campaign funds the incumbent politicians are now bragging about.   Taxpayers should demand a share of the pharmaceutical prescription drug and medical device profits under "work made  for hire" Patent laws because taxpayer dollars paid for all the research and we deserve part of the profit, which could be deposited in the Social Security fund.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Supreme Court of the U.S. wrongfully decided to allow Corporations to be "persons", and by ruling Corporations as "persons" they are aiding and abetting

CAMPAIGN FINANCE MONEY LAUNDERING.

FOR EXAMPLE:  F-35 JETS

Stop the F-35 strike fighter jets from being based in the  largest population area of  Vermont because they are  designed to be dual capable to carry nuclear bombs,  and nuclear bombs will be stored adjacent to the civilian Burlington International Airport, creating an astoundingly  unsafe situation.

 (1) Elected officials in U.S. Congress vote to give Billions  of dollars to the Pentagon.

 (2) The Pentagon gives Billions of dollars to Defense Contractors.

(3) The Defense Contractors give literally millions, out of the billions, to Lobbyists.  The Lobbyists wine and  dine the  elected officials.

(4) The high paid employees of the Defense Contractors  give money to Political Action Committees (PACs)  which give  money to elected officials campaign funds.

(5) Your  taxpayer dollars have come full circle, into  the million dollar campaign accounts the incumbent  politicians are bragging about.

(6) Worse yet, members of the U.S. Military are coming home  with amputated arms and legs and psychological trauma  and they aren't getting enough medical treatment. Cris Ericson calls this campaign finance money laundering,  which she feels should be considered a crime, because  our service men and women are left suffering while  elected politicians are bragging about having bagged your taxpayer dollars into their campaign  accounts.

IMPEACH THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



VIRGINIA

Virginia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Glenda Gail 'for Rail' Parker

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I agree that there is too much money in politics. 

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Corporations are not "persons" entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens.


Virginia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Lawrence Gaughan

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Beginning with my own campaign, we are fighting to end business as usual in Washington. I will encourage other ordinary working people and non-millionaire candidates to run for office, and I will use my own campaign as an example of how to run an effective campaign without big money. Once elected, I will fully support any legislative effort and/or constitutional amendment that would remove money from politics. Furthermore, I would support legislation that restores the Voting Right Act provisions, and promotes and protects people's right to vote.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The 2010 decision was wrong, and I fully support any effort to over-turn it. The constitution was written for the express purpose of protecting us from oligarchy, and Citizens United goes against the basic principles of democracy. The court ruling essentially erases the first three words, "We the People", and disregards the entire purpose of our government.


Virginia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Kenneth Hildebrandt

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I'll seek to author or co-author a bill calling for publicly funded elections, which was the stated goal of the late somewhat famous, Doris Haddock, better known as "Granny D," who walked across the continental US with a sign stating "Campaign Finance Reform," but she told me she was really walking for publicly funded elections, but felt that no one would even understand the sign if she carried one stating that at that time. She told me back in 2009 that there was various legislation pertaining to publicly funded elections in 27 states at that time. Oh yes, I forgot to say, Granny D did her walk between the ages of 88-90, and with the disease emphysema. She passed away at age 100 quite peacefully at home. We need real campaign finance reform along with publicly funded elections. Then we'll have a representative democracy, and not a moment too soon begin to steer in a direction of reason.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It gave unlimited power to what are far too often highly undemocratic institutions, thus we have undemocratic institutions having unlimited power over a nation that's technically a republic, yet prides itself on being a representative democracy.


Virginia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 06

Elaine Hildebrandt

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I'll support any reasonable legislation to counter this, including supporting a constitutional amendment if need be. I'll also, like my husband Ken who's running in the 5th district, author, co-author, and/or support legislation calling for publicly funded elections.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It's an outrage that needs to be changed.


Virginia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Gwendolyn Beck

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

First I would encourage corporations to get involved in the process to give rights back to the individual voter  - personal sacrifice for public good.  Concentrations of power give funders enormous power to pick not only the winner, but the 'endorsed' candidates.  This power needs to go back to the people and I will write/support legislation to move our country in this direction.  I will push for constitutional reform to return 'small dollar funding' to the electorate.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It gives too much power to corporations to influence our democratic process.


Virginia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 10

Dianne Blais

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Work to get full public financing of federal, state & local elections

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

It was a mistake that needs to be overturned.


Virginia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 10

William Redpath

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: No

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I won't.  There should be no campaign contribution limits, which are an incumbent protection device.  Eugene McCarthy said his insurgent 1968 Presidential campaign would have been Dead on Arrival under current campaign finance laws.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I agree with the Citizens United decision.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



WASHINGTON

Washington: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners

Kathleen Kler

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I have already used my campaign as an opportunity to state my position of opposition to corporate money buying rights. When elected, I hope for more opportunities to speak directly with our elected officials in Washington, DC, urging them to seek this needed change.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I remain dismayed that big money is distorting our democracy. Like any other limitation and miscarriage of justice, we will work until this decision is revisited and overturned.


Washington: State House, District 21, Position 1

Strom Peterson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Washington: State House, District 24, Position 1

Kevin Van de Wege

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: No

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

This is currently a federal issue. I will not sponsor resolutions, not because I don't agree with Move to Amend, but because they use precious time we have in the Legislature to take care of the state's business. Washington Statues do not supersede federal law so legislation is a mute point. I have and will continue to publically acknowledge my issues with corporate personhood.

Once Congress votes to amend the Constitution states must ratify it before it becomes effective. At that time I will become a loud leader for Washington to ratify this amendment.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I was disheartened and disagree with the Court's decision on this matter.


Washington: State House, District 24, Position 2

Steve Tharinger

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The Democratic caucus has sent letters and supported petitions to end corporate personhood. But as you know this is a federal issue more than a state issue.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I oppose the concept that money is speech.


Washington: State House, District 42, Position 2

Joy Monjure

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will support campaign finance reform in Washington state, a bill my opponent voted against.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I feel that this decision has opened the floodgates of special interest money in politics, and subsequent advertising has distorted the truth in elections across the country. I believe in transparent campaign finance efforts to reduce the amount of special interest money in our elections.


Washington: State House, District 45

Roger Goodman

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision


Washington: State House, District 48, Position 2

Joan McBride

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Washington: State Senate, District 05

Mark Mullet

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Washington: State Senate, District 21

Marko Liias

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Washington: State Senate, District 45

Matthew Isenhower

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?


Washington: U.S. House of Representatives, District 03

Robert Dingethal

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will propose legislation to overturn the Citizens United decision.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am opposed.


Washington: U.S. House of Representatives, District 06

Derek Kilmer

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I’m a proud cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 119, the Democracy for All Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to make it clear that Congress and state legislatures have the power to enact meaningful campaign finance reform, including limits on corporate and individual spending. We need to make it clear that free speech and other constitutionally protected rights are those of natural persons and not corporations or entities formed to promote their special interests. I’ve discussed this issue in every town hall meeting I’ve held and have participated in a public forum at Olympic College on the subject with several hundred people.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I strongly disagree with the Citizens United decision and believe it was a step in the wrong direction. I believe a functional democracy is predicated upon open and transparent elections in which every voter is able to make his or her views known. In a democracy, “We the People” should have the primary say in our government – not deep pockets or special interests. I do not believe corporations are people and I don’t think money is speech. I’ve cosponsored an amendment to the Constitution to overturn Citizens United.


Washington: U.S. House of Representatives, District 08

Jason Ritchie

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I will work to make sure that all campaign contributions are transparent and that the influence of corporations is not more important than the voice of the individual voter. Money should not buy votes. The battle of ideas must matter in our Democracy.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I absolutely oppose the Citizens United decision. It has made a bad situation even worse. It allows corporations, which already have too much power and money, to run our Democracy. This cannot stand. We must fight back. I'll fight for a constitutional amendment to end this corrupting decision.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



WEST VIRGINIA

West Virginia: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Davy Jones

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Introduce/support legislation that requires donation transparency and ends PAC contributions to campaigns. If an individual wishes to donate any amount to a campaign they should attached their name to it!

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Corporation are not citizens. They have no rights under the constitution. I would like to also see the corporate shield removed that protects corporate executive from not being held personally accountable for their conduct and negligence in the polluting of our environment!

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



WISCONSIN

Wisconsin: U.S. House of Representatives, District 01

Rob Zerban

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I would co-sponsor legislation aimed at overturning Citizens United and I would support a bill to amend the constitution to abolish corporate personhood and stem the tide of money in our political system. I have campaigned on this issue, and I would speak out forcefully for such legislation if elected to Congress.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I believe that corporations are not people and money is not speech. It's about as simple as that.

Right now, Congress' approval rating sits in the low teens. If we hope to get congress back on track, then we need to end the corrupting influence of money in politics so that legislators serve their constituents and not the special interests that fund their reelections.


Wisconsin: U.S. House of Representatives, District 02

Mark Pocan

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I am proud to be an original sponsor of the “We the People Amendment” with Minnesota Rep. Rick Nolan.  Our amendment asserts the fundamental equality of all Americans and rejects the idea the idea that corporations should have the same special protections as regular people.

The “We the People Amendment” states that: 1) Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities such as corporations and limited liability companies; and 2) Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

This amendment reverses the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United ruling which allowed for a flood of unlimited campaign cash from corporations and wealthy interests.  Rick and I, and our Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate are fighting to stop millionaires and billionaires from buying elections and undermining our American democracy.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United ruling was a major blow to our democracy. When the founders created the framework for our government, their intention was to give the American people the right to free speech – not corporations.

Corporate money is not free speech. Corporations are not people. I opposed the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling four years ago and I continue to stand with the majority of the American people who oppose it today.  Without immediate action, the roar of corporate money will drown out the voice of every American. Our democracy is based on one individual, one vote.  We must make it absolutely clear that money is not speech.

We must act if Congress continues to allow elections across the country to be bought by corporations and billionaires. We must continue to fight against the corporate interests at the grassroots level in every state and city in this country.


Wisconsin: U.S. House of Representatives, District 05

Chris Rockwood

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

I support the "Democracy for All Amendment" (H.J. Res. 119 and S.J. Res. 19, which was blocked by Senate Republicans in September 2014). I will also use my position in Congress to increase awareness of the problem of money in politics and to advocate for a system of public financing, which will allow more people to run for office regardless of their personal wealth.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I agree with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent statements (from an interview with The New Republic) regarding the Citizens United decision: that it is "number one" on her list of decisions that she would overrule if given an opportunity, and "the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be." The Citizens United decision has worsened problems that started in 1976 with the Buckley v. Valeo decision, which also needs to be overturned. Congress must be able to limit not only contributions but campaign expenditures, including from candidates’ personal funds, and implement a robust system of public financing.


Wisconsin: U.S. House of Representatives, District 07

Kelly Westlund

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I will support an array of legislative initiatives including but not limited to ending corporate personhood, increasing transparency as it pertains to the political activities of "social welfare" organizations, promoting public financing of elections, and instituting progressive taxation on political contributions. I will also also speak honestly and openly about the impact of big money on the political process.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to allow ownership of our government by the wealthiest few. It's wrong, and until we elect people who are committed to getting big money out of politics, our democracy will continue down the dangerous path to oligarchy. I believe that citizen voices ought to speak louder than campaign contributions. Our best hope of righting the course for future generations is a constitutional amendment articulating that corporations are not people and that money is not speech.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE



WYOMING

Wyoming: U.S. House of Representatives

Richard Grayson

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put the problem succinctly a few weeks ago: “The major issue of our time is whether the United States of America retains its democratic foundation or whether we devolve into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires are able to control our political process by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent their interests.” I will join with other like-minded (mostly Democratic) members of Congress, grass roots organizations and others in the fight against our current warped system.  However, I am a hopeless candidate running against a multimillionaire opponent, spending absolutely no money of my own (I don't have any) or anyone else's.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

Citizens United v. FEC, like its predecessor Buckley v. Valeo, and the more recent McCutcheon v. FEC, rank with the worst lines of Supreme Court decisions of all time.  They are as dangerous to democracy as the Dred Scott decison or Plessy v. Ferguson.  The Supreme Court's logic in calling unlimited campaign donations "free speech" and overruling its prior rulings that even the mere appearance of "undue influence" or the public's "cynical assumption that large donors call the tune" was enough to justify regulation. The corruption the Supreme Court ceased to find in the pernicious current system of campaign funding must be reversed through legislation or Constitutional amendment.


Wyoming: U.S. Senate

Curt Gottshall

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

The issue of Campaign Finance Reform is the backbone of my campaign.  I would like to be remembered as the senator who removed corruption from politics, by reforming campaign finance laws and legislating Term Limits.  PAC money and Corporate Campaign Contributions along with ads paid for directly by corporations should be deemed illegal. Politicians should not be bought and paid for by big business.  My Campaign is not taking any such funding. These donations do not come without strings attached, and I find them to be immoral and unethical.

As an Independent I will be dealing with each issue on merit and the desire of the people alone.  I will not have the support of a party on my ideals, but at the same time will not have the pressure of a party pushing me to vote against the will of my constituents.  When I sponsor or co-sponsor these campaign finance reform bills it will be up to each senator Republican and Democrat alike to vote on them. If they decide to vote against the issue out of some sense of party affiliation or in the interest of receiving these unethical campaign funds, instead of what is best for the people; then their voting records will be certainly held against them when they run for re-election.  I feel that as an Independent this unique position will give Wyoming a real chance at making a positive change not only for Wyoming, but for our nation as a whole.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United Case is the by far the most ridiculous stretch of the application of the first amendment that I have ever seen.  It has basically circumnavigated all the rules of the Federal Election Commission and has set precedence for not following any of the restrictions set forth there in.  It could be argued that if a corporation has the right to limitlessly air ads for politicians protected by the First Amendment then the same First Amendment should be applied to any private citizen as well, making all of our campaign finance laws unenforceable. 

It is obvious that we need to legislate Campaign Finance Laws through the legislative branch of government and stop relying on the court system to misinterpret and create precedence and in turn making laws on their own.  I pledge to my constituents from Wyoming and to the Citizens of our entire Nation that once elected I will work relentlessly on sponsoring bills to legislate campaign finance reform laws and remove the corruption of Big Business and PAC money from Washington.  Our Nation is plagued with corruption and is in desperate need to be saved from the crony-capitalistic, unethical government that is currently in power.  We can no longer sit idly by and expect things to change without doing something to make a change.  It is time for us to return to a "government of the people by the people and for the people."


Wyoming: U.S. Senate

Charlie Hardy

“I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have Constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

RESPONSE: Yes

“I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.”

RESPONSE: Yes

How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

As a US Senator I will use my public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics. I would be a co-signer on a Senate Bill similar to House Joint Resolution 29. More than that, I would be an activist on this issue.

What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision?

I am against it and would work to challenge and overturn it. More than that, money in politics has reached the zenith of harm to our democracy. Voting alone won't change that as the game is now fixed. We must break this fix by exercising a richer, deeper, more resilient and creative democracy. One that doesn't begin with a candidate and end with a vote but begins as a child and engages us in fuller richer lives where we demand our ability to govern directly our own lives and have an equal say to those of extreme wealth on the broader issues of governance. It is not going to be easy but nothing worthwhile ever is.