Mendocino County Measure F, End Corporate Rule, Defend Democracy

Measure F Official Title: Advisory Measure to End Corporate Rule and Defend Democracy

Mendocino County, California, election of November 6, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court, so far, is okay with our government telling us exactly how much lead can be in our drinking water; how far apart (and from what types of trees) studs must be in the houses we build; and what banners cheerleaders can hold up, or not hold up, at public school football games. But when it comes to political campaign contributions, the Court had ruled that almost anything goes.

The effect, of course, is to allow both the average citizens and billionaires the rights to give unlimited funds to use in political advertising. How much can you give? True, most politicians have always allowed themselves to be bought and sold like so many properties on a monopoly board. The recent change is that the Supreme Court says Congress cannot regulate campaign contributions even in its own elections (even though the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power of regulating the "manner" of elections in Article I, Section 4.). The election of 2012 is consequently being characterized by almost endless political advertisements funded by the criminally wealthy. Most of this "political free speech" as the Supreme Court would characterize it, is in the form of misleading attack ads.

The billionaires may be private citizens, but in almost every case their wealth was created by corporations. These corporations themselves, according to the Supreme Court, are persons with rights granted by the Constitution.

Imagine, however, if when the Mendocino County Building inspectors showed up, someone claimed that their construction project was a person, and therefore exempt from building codes. That the house has a right to build itself from sub-standard materiasl, for instance. That may seem absurd, but if the reasoning (if it can be called that) of the Supreme Court is taken to its logical conclusion, the housing result follows. Ultimately, by saying free speech implies a total lack of regulation, the Supremes argue that government should have no power whatsoever.

Why are corporations persons? Why, per the Supremes, because they are owned by persons, and to suppress the (alleged) rights of corporations would be to suppress the rights of the real human persons who own them.

Corporations are a form of property. You can buy or sell them like any other form of property. They have a legitimate purpose: to allow investors to share risks and rewards. There is nothing wrong with that in a barbaric, pre-utopian economy.

Proposition F takes the position, and allows the voters of Mendocino to take a position, saying the obvious: property is not a person. Property does not have free speech rights, or the right to freedom of religion, or the right to make political campaign donations.

A building is a piece of property. It can (and usually does) have multiple owners. Should personhood free buildings from regulation? Should city buildings be exempt from fire and safety codes?

Of course not. In a democracy we can argue endlessly about the details of the building codes, and the food and drug safety codes, and whether every child in every car must be strapped in a special seat meeting government regulations. But we need building codes, and food inspections, and the other trapping of civilization. Unless we want to abandon civilization itself.

We need to regulate campaigns, taking into account the needs of the candidates to have fair access to voters. And of the elected officials to represent all of the citizens, not just a few wealthy donors. We need to keep any particular group of people from buying the politicians who are supposed to represent all of us.

Measure F may only be an advisory measure, but it is sound advice.

William P. Meyers, Publisher and Editor, Mendoday.com

More information:

CaliforniaDemocracy.org pages on corporate personhood and related issues.

Move to Amend seeks to amend the Constitution to abolish corporate personhood and allow for the regulation of election campaigns.

Catching up on California Referenda, etc.

My lack of writing here does not mean that a lot has not been going on. There is nenewed interest in the issue of Corporate Personhood, so I'm going to be speaking in Davis on April 15, and then we are celebrating Democracy Day in Point Arena with a couple of events: on the 23rd This Land Is Your Land will be shown at the Arena Theater and on the 24th we'll have a discussion on corporate personhood.

There will be 5 propositions on the California primary ballot on June 8, 2010. I'm not sure that illustrates democracy in action, since getting propositions on the ballot takes so many signatures these days, it mostly happens when some big business interests have money to throw at an issue. You can see my takes on the five issues at June 2010 California Propositions Overview at californiademocracy.org.

By way of controvery, I am in favor of Proposition 14, which makes the primaries essentially non-partisan. I don't buy the fear-driven arguments of the California Democratic, Republican, and Green Parties. What is good for the citizens is not necessarily what is good for the parties. Incumbents tend to have a lock on elections in California, and so small groups of voters, the majority within the dominant party in each district, decide almost all elections in the primaries. In particular I think that "third" parties will be able to attract more voters in the primaries under Proposition 14, and that should help them build their cores of regular voters. In the many districts of California that have become nearly single-party, in November everyone will be able to choose from two candidates of the dominant party. That would at least break the monotony.

Money will still be a big factor in the campaigns, and so will all the usual political trappings. I don't expect 14 will pass, but if it does I don't expect a lot of change overnight. I do hope that more people will participate in primaries and also register decline-to-state, instead of feeling they have to be in a particular party to participate.