Ending Corporate Personhood in Rhode Island

Rhode Island Move to Amend held a meeting Monday night at the Warwick Public Library to discuss ways in which to reverse the Supreme Court's controversial and unpopular Citizens United decision. House Bill 6051, introduced by Representative Art Handy, seeks to challenge the Supreme Court ruling by asserting that Corporations are not persons and that money is not speech. Passing such a law, in direct contravention to the Supreme Court could have several effects. The Supreme Court may strike down the law upon consideration or it may use the law to reconsider it's previous decision. Supporters say that both outcomes will lead to fresh discussions on the corrupting influence of money on our political system.

Over the course of the next several months Rhode Island Move to Amend will be working to engage the public and our legislators over this very important issue. You can help by joining Rhode Island Move to Amend.

Major rhetorical territory was staked out at the House Judiciary Committee meeting held on May 9, to discuss the bill. Abel Collins, who heads up the Move to Amend Coalition, stated it plainly when he said, "Now is the time to stop [corporations]… which are really just legal fictions, from having the same rights as persons."

Chris Curry, of RI MoveOn.org, spoke forcefully of the dystopian impact of Citizens United.

Of all the issues we address, nothing even comes close to matching Citizens United's ability to inspire rage and indignation in just about everyone I talk to. Not because it's so fundamentally dishonest that corporations are people or that money equals speech, it's because they consider the five justices of the Supreme Court who made that ruling to have violated their oath of office by unconstitutionally establishing a framework for a takeover of our country by multinational corporations.

A spokesperson for the RI Sierra Club said, "Rhode Island should get in front of this issue our state was founded by thinkers who were not afraid to be contrarians to the dominant paradigms of the time. We should make a stand and say that our country is for the people and by the people and not for sale to the highest bidder."

In counterpoint, the RI ACLU opposes any legislation that might open the door to restricting political speech, or limiting a person's right to use money to advance their speech.

"I've heard this a lot, that 'money is not speech,'" said RI ACLU Director Steve Brown, "That's a very catchy slogan, but it really simplifies a much more complicated issue. Money is not necessarily speech but it certainly facilitates a lot of speech and it is necessary to facilitate a lot of speech…

If you want to prepare a flyer, and get fifty copies made at Kinko's to express your opposition to this constitutional amendment it costs money. To just say that money is not speech and therefore can be regulated is to say that the General assembly could say, "You cannot spend money if it's to be used to prepare a flyer on a political issue."

We think that the State Constitution would be diminished and demeaned by adding a provision like this into a very important document meant to protect all of our rights.

Amplifying Steve Brown's points and adopting the ACLU's position as his own was a spokesperson for the RI Tea Party, who said, perversely, "Citizens United struck a tremendous blow for the First Amendment," and added,

Money is not the problem. Corporations are not evil entities in and of themselves. Corporations are nothing more than collections of individuals and people who are responsible for their own decisions.

Stepping on the First Amendment is a slippery slope that we cannot walk onto. That is the reason why, for philosophical reasons, that we have to oppose this.

John Marion of Common Cause RI struck a mostly neutral tone. The national organization has not yet reached a consensus on the kind of language it would like to see in a bill designed to take on Citizen's United, and though he appreciated Art Handy and Move to Amend's efforts, he urged caution.

We appreciate the efforts of Move to Amend and the other groups that have come out with specific language, but as Mr. Brown said, this is very weighty a matter. We disagree with the ACLU's belief that you shouldn't tinker because this problem is one created by an interpretation of the Constitution, so it can only be solved by a change to our Constitution.

People talk about Citizens United, Citizens United, Citizens United, but really this is about a case in 1876, Buckley v. Valeo which is the case that basically decided that money is the functional equivalent of speech and therefore since we can't limit the speech, we can't limit the money. So I think its really important that we go back and look at that decision and the context of that decision.

Perhaps the most pragmatic and compelling statement came from Jerry Belair, speaking for the RI Progressive Democrats, not because of his politics, but because of his career as a corporate attorney.

I'm a corporate attorney. I can tell you clearly that a corporation is not a person. We establish a corporation for the purposes of making business easy for us. It's a very successful way of doing business. It's also a means of limiting our liability… That the purpose for these entities. And to even suggest that somehow a corporation has attained personhood under either the Federal Constitution or a state constitution is insidious. It's the most insidious attack on our democracy that I've seen in my lifetime.

It is clear that money in politics, money as speech and corporate personhood are large issues that demand lots of thought and definitive action. The ACLU would support a slate of legislation to address these issues, even as it continues to support Citizens United:

…the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Perhaps these concerns can be addressed in the way that the ACLU would like, but even the ACLU sees the prospects of real reform as being rather dim. In the very next paragraph the group opines that,

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

I would suggest that the cynicism is all the ACLU's. Under their formulation, money is not just speech, money is power, and it will always find a way to corrupt our political system. Anything we do to change this system, the ACLU seems to say, can only potentially make things worse. Such an outlook is the epitome of cynicism.

RI Move to Amend is hopeful in that particular way Rhode Island embodies Hope, and emblazons this word on our state flag. Our state was born out of Hope and has stood up to an enormously powerful enemy with near infinite money and power before. On the issue of corporate personhood Rhode Island can show the way just as we did 241 years ago when the HMS Gaspee burned. 

The fight against corporate personhood is the ultimate civil rights battle. With this legislation Rhode Island can once again strike the first blow for freedom and ignite a revolution that can bring an end to the specter of corporate oligarchy.

Note: This piece originally appeared yesterday on RI Future.

At 9pm on Thursday evening, May 16th, the second episode of Constitution USA with Peter Sagal will premiere on channel 36, Rhode Island's PBS affiliate. This episode prominently features the Cranston West Prayer Banner case and interviews both Jessica Ahlquist, the high school student who successfully had the banner removed, and David Bradley, the man who was the student in 1963 who wrote the prayer. The piece features footage shot by yours truly.

Here's a shot with my screen credit:

And, if you don't want to wait or you're reading this too late, you can watch the episode online here.

Watch It's a Free Country on PBS. See more from Constitution USA with Peter Sagal.

PayDay Loans: My Testimony before the House Finance Committee

"You will pay me- forever."

My testimony in support of House Bill 5019, that "would repeal the provisions of the general laws allowing deferred deposit providers, also known as 'payday lenders.'" I will be presenting the testimony to the Rhode island House Finance Committee this evening.

Good evening Representatives, my name is Steve Ahlquist. I am the president of the Humanists of Rhode Island, a non-profit group with about 300 members dedicated to reason, compassion, optimism and action. I am here to support House Bill 5019 that seeks to put an end to the terrible injustice that is PayDay Loans.

I read a letter in theProvidence Journal from an employee of a PayDay Loan company in Pawtucket who told the story of a woman who desperately needed $200 to fix her son's car and help him keep his job. The writer stated that the woman was desperate, and had no recourse other than to utilize his company's services. The writer saw this as a vindication for the service his company provided, but I see it as exactly the opposite, because,

The woman in question had no choice.

The woman in the story had to either sign a contract and promise to pay the frankly usurious rates of interest the PayDay Loan company charged or face the potentially terminal economic consequences of her son losing his job. Given certain economic ruin or punishing interest rates of over 200%, the woman made the only choice she could. The question becomes: Would the woman have hesitated to sign the contract if the interest rates were set at 400%? 500%? More? How was she to avoid it?

The woman in question had no choice.

When people are faced with not feeding their children, accessing vital health care, paying the rent or fixing an automobile that's essential to getting or keeping a job, they will become desperate.

This desperation is like the smell of blood to PayDay Loan companies because PayDay Loan companies are vampires targeting the most vulnerable among us, sucking millions of needed dollars out of our poorest neighborhoods. When legislation looms that might threaten the company's ability to score obscene profits PayDay Loan Companies manage to invest $100,000 in a lobbyist, or, to keep with the vampire metaphor, a ghoul.

Certainly we can do better than this. Must we leave our most vulnerable as prey to the heartless, inhuman machinations of profit hungry monsters? Is their no other way to provide needed loan services to our poorest and most desperate fellow citizens? Are we so bereft of ideas or so blinded by ideological certainties as to cast our fate with monsters?

It is time for the General Assembly to drive a stake into the heart of the vampire that is devouring our communities by passing House Bill 5019.

Thank you.

John DePetro's anti-Catholic hate for undocumented workers

This piece ran on RI Future.info yesterday:

When six-year old Derrick Johnson was struck and killed by a pickup truck driven by Andres Morales, the community mourned a tragic death. There is no question that the terrible event was an accident, Morales had no intention or wish to harm the boy. Perhaps the accident was preventable, perhaps not, but the case has taken on a special significance in the minds of some because the driver of the pick-up was an undocumented worker who apparently had no license.

John DePetro, the noisome talk radio show host, made a big deal back in November over Governor Chafee's idea of giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses. A bill to allow this is slowly making its way through the General Assembly. Somehow, in a gigantic leap of illogic, DePetro has decided that Chafee bears some responsibility for the boy's death. On his blog, DePetro writes, above a photo of the deceased boy:

Governor Gump needs to hold off on giving illegals drivers licenses. A young American life is taken by an invader. John DePetro has protested Governor Chafee for cutting a deal to get votes in exchange for giving an illegal a drivers license . The illegals threaten they will not vote for Chafee unless they are given a Rhode Island drivers license.

DePetro's hatred for undocumented workers is palpable and grotesque and DePetro's revolting invective encourages his callers to respond with even greater levels of stomach-churning bile. Those who maintain a different view from DePetro are of course lambasted. Back in November DePetro allowed a caller named Raymond through and what followed was a litany of racist abuse, which DePetro yelled out as the man tried to express his opinions in heavily accented English. DePetro said:

"We have turkey on Thanksgiving, not stuffed pigeons, the illegals Thanksgiving."

"You are going to learn our customs!"

"This is our land. No el drive-o on our road-o."

Talking about a rally at the State House, DePetro said that undocumented workers "should have been there to clean the State House and that's it."

"I have a problem with you people on the road. No more loose donkeys on Broad St."

DePetro's hate has unhinged him. Diving, or rather belly-flopping into the Boston Bombing story and the local connection to Tamerlain Tsarnaev's wife, Katherine Russell, DePetro has made a spurious and unfounded connection between "illegals" and terrorists, scrawling on his blog, "Governor Chafee wanted to roll out the red carpet to everyone and it looks like it is working. Terrorist (sic) and illegals are flocking to Rhode Island."

That DePetro's radio show is a cesspool of hate is not a source of shame but a point of pride for the man. His website is full of pictures that attempt to depict undocumented workers as scary non-white "others" in order to appeal to the basest prejudices of his listeners, and smear Governor Chafee: 

 

 

 

And yet, DePetro still maintains, despite his hate for and vilification of undocumented workers, that he is a Catholic. Saccharine piety drips from DePetro's tongue with same same thickness and intensity as the hateful bile he spews against those who are not like him, and the Catholic Church not only says nothing, they actively support him. Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Diocese is a not infrequent guest. Father Bernard Healey, the Providence Diocese's chief lobbyist to the General Assembly, appeared at DePetro's Odeum event in East Greenwich.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), in "Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity" have written the official Catholic teaching on immigration.

We recognize that nations have the right to control their borders. We also recognize and strongly assert that all human persons, created as they are in the image of God, possess a fundamental dignity that gives rise to a more compelling claim to the conditions worthy of human life. Accordingly, the Church also advocates legalization opportunities for the maximum number of undocumented persons, particularly those who have built equities and otherwise contributed to their communities.

The Maryland Catholic Conference has boiled the church's teaching to seven basic precepts.

All people have a right to have their basic human needs met in their homelands.

If their basic needs cannot be met in their homelands, persons have the right to seek them abroad.

The right to migrate is not absolute and can be mitigated in favor of the common good.

Nations may regulate borders to provide for national security, tranquility and prosperity.

The right to regulate borders is not absolute and regulations must promote the common good.

Nations with the ability to accommodate migrants should respond with generosity.

Families have the right to remain united.

Nowhere in these statements is there hate. Nowhere in these statements are immigrants unfairly associated with terrorism, or are those who seek to help undocumented workers implicated in vehicular homicide. Instead, there are calls for generosity and an appeal to the common good.

John DePetro is a terrible person, and a terrible Christian. Mouthing platitudes does not make someone a decent human being. Showing compassion and understanding, actions apparently outside DePetro's skill set, does. And once again the Providence Diocese, under the direction of Bishop Thomas Tobin, has failed to be any kind of a moral leader. In supporting DePetro the diocese has once more abandoned its commitment to protect those in need.

Ending Corporate Personhood and Money as Speech in Rhode Island

House Bill 6051 was introduced by Representative Art Handy.

Rhode Island is the first state to introduce any kind of legislation to counter the ridiculous Supreme Court decision commonly known as Citizens United. Here is the full video of those who spoke out both for and against the bill at a public hearing held on May 9, 2013. I was unfortunately unable to attend, but some of the testimony is fascinating.

Video: Testifying for Reproductive Rights and Freedom

My testimony at the Rhode Island State House before the House Judiciary Committee on May 8, 2013. Under consideration were five bills, H5566, H5435, H5104, H5334 and H5488 that seek to limit a woman's access to quality reproductive health care, especially abortion. My written testimony can be read here. 

 

License plate legislation aids anti-choice efforts

Is Rhode Island the Louisiana of New England?

Here's the piece that originally ran on RI Future.info on May 10th, 2013: 

In the battle over marriage equality in Rhode Island, one of the most vocal groups in opposition to full civil rights for the LGBTQ community was the Knights of Columbus (KoC), a Roman “Catholic fraternal service organization.”

The KoC is one of the major, if not the major contributor to the National Organization for Marriage and a founding member of the anti-marriage equality coalition the Faith Alliance.

In the end, though the KoC could not prevent marriage equality, they did lobby for and receive a special religious exceptions for their organization. In essence, based on First Amendment arguments regarding freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and separation of church and state, the Knights of Columbus have preserved their right to discriminate against LGBTQ citizens, just like churches and clergy.

In January, Representatives Corvese, Edwards, Fellela, Azzinaro and Malik introduced legislation that “would authorize the division of motor vehicles to issue special license plates in recognition of ‘Choose Life.’”

House Bill 5053, allows the KoC to design new license plates in conjunction with the division of motor vehicles, and further will allow the KoC to split the $40 fee with the state, generating a minimum of $18,000 for the organization. This money “shall be distributed annually to the Knights of Columbus Choose Life account in furtherance of one of their missions of assisting pregnant women and their unborn and newborn infants via non-government funded programs that provide free services that promote and support the alternative choices of infant adoption and Rhode Island’s Safe Haven.”

Just to be clear on what this means, the government will be assisting the KoC in its fundraising efforts that seek to prevent women from accessing safe and legal abortions, which the KoC does on purely religious grounds. At the point this bill becomes a reality, the “non-government funded programs” run by the KoC will in truth be at least partially government funded, a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

The KoC lobbied hard to have their facilities protected from the odious burden of hosting same-sex weddings, citing religious exceptionalism. There is no arguing with their status as a religious organization when they are seeking the right to discriminate against certain citizens.

The separation of church and state, however, cuts both ways. Allowing a religious group to advertise their religious views on our license plates, as a means of generating funds is an abandonment of the principles this country was founded upon. I’m sure the KoC can come up with better fundraising ideas that don’t require them to entwine their religion with our freedoms.

I would suggest selling bumper stickers.