Rebuttal: Abolishing ‘Corporate Personhood’

In a recent article that was picked up by Infowars, author Len Hart advocates abolishing ‘corporate personhood’ by way of a constitutional amendment.

Len writes:

A proposed amendment would reverse the decision of the high court with respect to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-to-4 vote, SCOTUS ‘created’ real people of mere corporations declaring that corporations have, among every Constitutional right, a right of ‘free speech’ under the First Amendment. It was declared that the government may not ‘impose restrictions’ on the political speech that corporations may indulge. As a result, corporations and other special interest groups are now given license to spend “unlimited amounts of money on elections.” It was a green light to corporations: buy and/or support any candidate with as much money as you want to spend! The decision could not have been a bigger afront to Democracy, i.e, government of the people. Free speech is a right of people as affirmed by our founders. That corporations may now claim that right is simply fascism. Pure and simple!

While I am against any notion of “group rights” – we must remember that corporations are collections of individuals, and as such, groups of individuals must have the same freedoms as singular individuals.

The evil that comes from corporate personhood does not stem from the fact that groups of people can voluntarily voice their views, the evil comes from treating corporate groups as persons when it comes to liability laws.  Holding a corporate entity liable for damages, rather than the corporate owners (or shareholders) is why corporations are so destructive to the market.

Liability under the law is not a free action (freedom) in the way the ability to speak one’s mind is.  Corporate liability laws allow corporations (groups of people) to do bad things, while allowing the owners of that corporation to avoid personal responsibility for their actions.  In fact, the primary purpose of incorporating is to avoid liability problems which is why entities such as limited liability corporations exist in the first place!  The legal title has the reason right in its name!

Len seems to be conflating problems that are inherent with a violently funded democratic State with those of individual rights.  Len thinks that allowing corporations to have free speech is bad because he fears that corporations will use their speech to influence political campaigns.  However, this assumes that political campaigns are legitimate in the first place!

Len… Len… Len…  The problem isn’t the fact that corporations can collectively speak their mind.  The problem is that a violent State exists which can take people’s resources away from them by force.  Consider that if coercive funding of the State did not exist, then it would not matter what corporations said.  Limiting the freedom of groups to collectively speak their mind is not the ultimate source of the problems you are trying to solve.  Nothing good ever comes from limiting the free action of individuals or groups of individuals.

For an alternative to the coercively funded State, look here:

  • Lennhart

    Sorry you wasted your time on a so-called ‘rebuttal’. It is a huge strawman fallacy from start to finish. Clearly –you have no understanding of what is either a ‘corporation’ or what is a ‘person’. This is no rebuttal to my position nor is your ‘statement’ an accurate description of a ‘corporate person’ i.,e a corporation that is considered to be a person. For example, you wrote: “While I am against any notion of “group rights” – we must remember that corporations are collections of individuals, and as such, groups of individuals must have the same freedoms as singular individuals.” 

    That is simply UNTRUE! A collection (group) is NOT the same as the individuals that make up the collection nor are the individuals the same as the ‘collection’. 

    A ‘group’ of snails, for example is not A snail. A quarter-back is NOT a team. A single student is not the school nor is the school a single student. 

    Moreover, members of a group may claim the same rights as other members but do so as ‘individuals’; their ‘claim’ cannot be confused with the claims of the group. 

    Go back to school. Take Philosophy 101. And don’t leave until you have mastered a few definitions. I would suggest you read Plato, Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer et al.  

    A link to the original article which remains un-refuted. http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2012/01/support-proposed-amendment-that-would.html  A ‘corporation’ is not a person

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      Explain to me why a group of individuals should not have the same freedom of action as a singular individual.  Feel free to reference any philosophy journal you wish in your response.

      • Len Hart

        The Bill of Rights describe the rights of INDIVIDUALS. Read it!

        • Starchild

          Does this mean that government should be able to conduct a search of your company’s offices without a warrant, or quarter troops there without the company’s consent, since (according to you) the Third and Fourth amendment protections against quartering troops and unreasonable searches and seizures do not cover corporations?

          • Len Hart

            Starchild, that’s another FALSE ANALOGY! Search warrants are issued if probable cause exists that an INDIVIDUAL has committed a crime. When ENRON was found to have been breaking all kinds of crimes, the specifics were alleged to have been committed by INDIVIDUALS. Enron fell but not because IT —as if it had been a person –were charged and tried.

      • Len Hart

        Because groups are not individuals! Groups may act upon a consensus! An individual because he/she is an individual is held accountable for his sins, crimes, transgression et al in various ways. Again –a choir is not ‘a’ singer and no one could mistake the sound of a choir for an individual soloist. An analogy already cited is that of a ‘pride’. A ‘pride’ will NEVER be mistaken for a single lion nor vice versa. Corporate personhood is a hoax if not a bald-faced lie! And, it has been my experience, that no good has ever come as a result of a lie or the embrace of one.

        • Starchild

          Like individuals, groups can be held accountable for their transgressions, but this does not mean that a group is a person!

          Corporations obviously are not persons, any more than unions, non-profit organizations, or government agencies are persons.

          Saying that people acting cooperatively together in a group should still be able to exercise their basic rights such as free speech in the name of that group, is *not* the same as claiming that the group itself is a person!

          It seems to me that the whole attack on “corporate personhood” is really based on a false premise, namely that defenders of people being able to exercise their rights by cooperating and speaking with a single voice, are saying that corporations are the same as people. I don’t know anyone who really believes a corporation is a person, not even Mitt Romney. That’s not the argument here at all.

          • Len Hart

            In the instances of which you speak occur, it is INDIVIDUAL PERSONS who serve the hard time when found guilty. You indulged a FALSE ANALOGY. I’ve covered more trials of ‘corporate crooks’ than of ‘individuals’! But –I digress. The point is: if “Libertarians” have swallowed the propaganda that a ‘collective’ (corporations) are persons then I strongly suggest that they enroll immediately in whatever remedial biology course they might be able to find. A CORPORATION is a ‘collective’ made up of many members –some are shareholders, some may be employees. It is a LEGAL ABSTRACTION not unlike those which were described by Saint Thomas. He called them –not people –but “CONSPIRACIES” of rich men to ‘procure their commodities in the name and title of the commonwealth”! More was correct! Modern libertarians are not merely wrong but wrong-headed if they should believe that mere words on papers, words bestowing PRIVILEGES upon a ‘collective organization’ are ‘real people’. I suggest several college level courses: 1) BIOLOGY: learn that ‘people’ are biological organisms; corporations are NOT and never will be; 2) Each real person has an ‘organic’ brain and is most certainly conscious. No mere contract, no mere draft of by-laws –either with other companies or with the state –possess the DEFINING characteristics of organic organisms called people. Again –a PERSON –is an organic organism; a ‘corporation’ is mere words on paper, at best, a contract binding upon its creators. Secondly, if you wish to get religious about this: ‘real people’ are believed by religious people to have been created by God! Corporations –significantly –are NOT believed by any sane person to have been created by anything other than that entity that is best described by Saint Thomas More as a ‘…conspiracy of rich men to procure their commodities in the name and title of the commonwealth”. Libertarians and anyone believing the utterly psychotic idea that corporations are people should check themselves in and get serious psychological help! Failing that –take a first semester Philosophy course at any major university. Failing that –get counseling. Believing that ‘words on paper’ are people may very well be psychotic.

      • Len Hart

        Explain to me WHY and HOW a group –which must act ‘collectively’ acquired what even scientists have called a ‘conscience’. Please explain to me how any GROUP may exercise a ‘conscience’. I suspect that the very purpose of corporations is to 1) raise huge amounts of cash and 2) act FREE of restraints that individuals often trace to ‘conscience’!

  • Lennhart

    Real persons are conceived biologically in a womb! Corporations are pieces of paper filed with a Sec of State somewhere (probably Delaware).  A ‘corporation’ is more in common with and is more accurately described/compared to a piece of paper than to real, living biological persons to whom John Locke and, later, the American founders, ascribed ‘rights’. NO rights accrue to a mere legal abstractions. Corporations can be constrained, restrained and/or limited by law and several hundred years of precedent. 

    NO intelligent person believes a ‘corporation’ is a ‘person’. Sir/St Thomas More –arguably the most brilliant confidant of King Henry VIII most certainly did not believe ‘corporations’ were ‘persons’. More believed, rather, that they were ‘conspiracies’ and ‘conspiracies of rich men’ to boot: 


    I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws.But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots!
    –Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia”

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      I’m not arguing about whether corporations should be considered real physical people, I’m arguing about whether groups of people have the same rights as individuals.  Clearly groups must have the same freedom of action as individuals because groups are composed of individuals.

      Your article isn’t really about corporate personhood, your article is about limiting the ability of groups to collectively speak their mind.  This is the issue I have a problem with.  As I stated, groups can not have “rights” beyond the individual, such as limits to liability that an individual does not enjoy, but groups most certainly have the same “rights” of free action and association that all individuals should enjoy.

      • Lennhart

        You wrote: ”
        Your article isn’t really about corporate personhood, your article is about limiting the ability of groups to collectively speak their mind. ” 

        That is a bald-faced LIE! I support the First Amendment. It applies to REAL PEOPLE –not what More, in fact, called ‘conspiracies of rich men’! And –no —the first amendment does NOT apply ot mere ‘legal abstractions’ that are simply put on file with a Sec of State somewhere. The FIRST applies to REAL people and if you think otherwise —PROVE IT! Support it! 

        • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

          If individuals should have the freedom to speak their mind, then so to do collections of individuals.

          You can write pages upon pages expressing your discontent with this view, but philosophically speaking, it is immoral for free action to be abrogated by simple association with a group. 

          I never said corporations should be considered people, they should be considered collections or groups of people. Because they are composed of people, corporations should enjoy the same rights as individuals do – nothing more and nothing less than this.

          Limits to liability, cronyism, handouts, nepotism, etc.. etc.. are not rights. In fact there are no rights, there is only freedom of action.

          • Lennhart

            You wrote: ”  If individuals should have the freedom to speak their mind, then so to do collections of individuals. ” CLUE: being ‘real persons’, individuals have that right in any case. READ JOHN LOCKE. Secondly, being the result of an act of CREATION by real people, corporations have NO SUCH RIGHT by default. 

            The name of your fallacy is ‘begging the question” Look it up! 

            But I will help you because you need help. Your statement (in quotes) merely assumes what you are ‘hoping’ to prove. 

            “Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.”

          • Lennhart


            I never said corporations should be considered people, ” 

            That’s not true, Michael. You attacked my position that corporations were NOT persons. Now –you are trying to weasel your way out of a dichotomy of your own creation. Either corporations are perfson or they are not! I says that they are not; moreover, corporations are better described by St Thomas More who said of them they were a ‘conspiracy’! To be accurate, a ‘conspiracy’ is engaged in by two or more persons but the conspiracy is not, in itself, a person. Again –take a few university level courses in philosophy, symbolic logic, law! That would be a start. Secondly, stop presuming to characterize and/or attacking positions which you clearly do not understand. 

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            I never said corporations should be considered people, please feel free to quote me and point out where I said that.  I can only repeat myself.  Corporations are groups of people acting together to accomplish some common goal.  Because groups of people are composed of individuals, they have the same rights as individuals.  The two cannot be separated.

            Further, you are completely ignoring my points about why limiting speech does not address the root causes of cronyism, corporate welfare, etc.. etc.. I’m not attacking the idea that corporations should not be legally defined as individuals, I’m attacking the idea that limiting corporate speech will somehow end cronyism.  I presume that if you weren’t concerned about cronyism, you wouldn’t have bothered to pen that article in the first place.

            Stop believing in a violent system of theft and start questioning why you feel such theft is moral in the first place.

          • Lennhart

            I am not ignoring your points. You have never made a valid one. Nor have you refuted ANY of my points any ONE of which destroys the utter insanity that is represented by ‘corporate personhood’. Go back to school. Take a university level course in logic. Study ‘class theory’, symbolic logic, logical positivism, check the definition of ‘definition’; learn some ‘class theory’, linguistics. Read A.J. Ayer. Russell, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More. You might benefit from some ‘existentialism’ which is, simplistically, the position that one is what one does. The are scores, if not thousands of things that real people can do that mere words on paper, mere agreements among real persons can NEVER, EVER do. Again —corporations are not people. They are better described as ‘contracts’ between a government and its citizens. Not even Thomas Hobbes claimed personhood for his “Leviathan’! Mitt Romney is ignorant, wrong, possibly stupid, and most definitely is a member of what St Thomas More would have characterized as a ‘conspiracy of richment to procure their commodities in the name and title of the commonwealth!”  Now –if I have not made the point: CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE and NEVER WILL BE even if it should be decreed by dictator! 

          • Len Hart

            Your assignment: look up the case law re: BURDEN OF PROOF!

            CLUE: if you believe that mere legal abstractions are living, breathing persons, then prove it! Give me the pulse rate of Enron as it was in the midst of collapse. Give me the pule rate of Halliburton when IT reports its undeserved profits to stockholders —all of which are REAL, living, breathing individuals human beings if somewhat crooked for putting money into Halliburton stock!

            Simply –if you believe corporations are persons, PROVE IT! Show me one corporation that has become pregnant by having copulated with another corporation and, ultimately, given birth to a little toddler corporation! How cute!!!

          • Len Hart

            I did more than express my discontent with this view! I UTTERLY refute it.

      • Len Hart

        Clue: REAL PEOPLE are ‘real physical persons’ by DEFINITION! SCOTUS absurdly assumes the power of an all-powerful deity when it PRESUMES to make of mere legal abstractions a PERSON! CLUE: definitions matter!!! And that goes for an arrogant court to presumes to assume either the power of millions of years of evolution, or –if you are religious —the awesome power of GOD!

  • Lennhart

    Real persons are conceived biologically in a womb! There is a word for that process but this short note is not about sex. Corporations, by contrast, are pieces of paper filed with a Sec of State somewhere (probably Delaware). Ergo: a ‘corporation’ is not and never will be a person.
     
    A ‘corporation’ has more in common with and is more accurately described/compared to a piece of paper than to real, living biological persons to whom John Locke and, later, the American founders, ascribed ‘rights’. NO rights accrue to a mere legal abstractions but the ‘privileges’ that are defined and described specifically in a corporate charter that is prepared in advance by REAL people. Corporations can be constrained, restrained and/or limited by law and several hundred years of precedent. 
     
    NO intelligent person believes a ‘corporation’ is a ‘person’. Sir/St Thomas More –arguably the most brilliant confidant of King Henry VIII –most certainly did not believe ‘corporations’ were ‘persons’. More believed, rather, that they were ‘conspiracies’ and ‘conspiracies of crooked rich men’ to boot:  
    “I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws.But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots!  –Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia”
    So there —Mitt (you idiot) Romney. 
     
    A hurd is now a cow! A covey is not a quail. A stamp collection is not a stamp nor is a flock a sheep. And an ant is not a colony. 
     
    So there, Mitt Romney! Now STFU! 

  • Lennhart

    This is the ‘note’ I posted on Facebook where it will be seen by some 5000 friends —all of whom are REAL people: 

    Real persons are conceived biologically in a womb! There is a word for that process but this short note is not about sex. Corporations, by contrast, are pieces of paper filed with a Sec of State somewhere (probably Delaware). Ergo: a ‘corporation’ is not and never will be a person. A ‘corporation’ has more in common with and is more accurately described/compared to a piece of paper than to real, living biological persons to whom John Locke and, later, the American founders, ascribed ‘rights’. NO rights accrue to a mere legal abstractions but the ‘privileges’ that are defined and described specifically in a corporate charter that is prepared in advance by REAL people. Corporations can be constrained, restrained and/or limited by law and several hundred years of precedent.  NO intelligent person believes a ‘corporation’ is a ‘person’. Sir/St Thomas More –arguably the most brilliant confidant of King Henry VIII –most certainly did not believe ‘corporations’ were ‘persons’. More believed, rather, that they were ‘conspiracies’ and ‘conspiracies of crooked rich men’ to boot:  “I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws.But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots! 
     
    –Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia” A hurd is not a cow! A covey is not a quail. A stamp collection is not a stamp nor is a flock a sheep. And an ant is not a colony. 

    • Lennhart

      You wrote: ”
      I’m not arguing about whether corporations should be considered real physical people, I’m arguing about whether groups of people have the same rights as individuals.  Clearly groups must have the same freedom of action as individuals because groups are composed of individuals. ” 

      WTF do you think I’m talking about. My suggestion: find a community college and enroll in a 1) biology course 2) a psychology course 3) a philosophy course in which are covered essential works of Kant, Thomas More, and –essentially –the works of the logical positivists to include A.J. Ayer whose  treatise on the ‘meaning’ of meaning is essential if one it to think clearly about any issue involving definitions, abstractions and verifiable or non-verifiable propositions. A simplistic clue: ‘corporate personhood’ is simply a label stuck on a claptrap espoused for political and highly partisan purposes. The idea that corporations are people is 1) untenable linguistically 2) contrary to some 300 years of Western philosophy to include everything from Kant to A.J.Ayer and especially the work of those more recent philosophers with respect to the ‘meaning of meaning’. Briefly –as I don’t have time to write a book –the proposition that ‘corporations are peole’is UTTELRY MEANINGLESS. It’s BS! 

  • Cmcmahon

    Corporations were at one time only formed in the public interest (build a bridge) and dissolved when the reason for their incorporation was finished. This was a legal protection to get the job done. Today corporations have all the legal protections and never die (insert bailout if needed). Thus the corporations are the people. The people from the constitution have become citizens thanks to amendments to the constitution. Citizens have few legal protections and are basically workers for the corporations. The United States was founded on individual rights and thus the system we have today is upside down.

  • Lennhart

    A prediction —corporate personhood is a cutting issue. Any party subscribing to this crap (and that most certainly includes ‘libertarians’) will go down in flames. Citizens-United joins Bush v Gore in terms of popularity. It may eventually be compared to Dred-Scott in terms of the scorn that it earns. Put another way: REAL people hate this decision and they are correct to do so. 

  • Cmcmahon

    According to Black’s Law Dictionary Second Edition corporations are artificial persons.

    • Lennhart

      An ‘artificial’ person is NOT a person! You’re saying that ‘robots’ are ‘persons’? Black’s Law definition is disingenuous. Neither dictionaries nor ill-informed legal decisions can make make people out of what are –in fact –mere contracts. They differ from other contracts only because they are normally on-file with a Sec of State somewhere. They simply outline the legal scope of responsibilities of those who are party to the contract. They DO NOT make of the contract a REAL PERSON. Nor can they! See the quote by St. Thomas More who said of them that they were, in fact, ‘…conspiracies of rich men to procure their commodities in the name and title of the commonwealth’! When the Sec of State in Delaware (for example) affixes his SEAL upon the articles of incorporation he had performed in a manner that had been PRECISELY described by the St Thomas More.  Ergo –corporations are better described as being ‘legalized conspiracies’ than as ‘real people’. The GOP is delusional and words fail to describe the depths of lies, propaganda and sophistry indulged by the likes of one A. Scalia who –laughingly –believes himself to be ‘too smart for the court’! 

    • Lennhart

      The term ‘artificial person’ is an oxymoron. ‘Real persons’ are, by definition, REAL! You expect us to believe that a ‘corporation-cum-person’ can be both REAL and –at the same time –artificial! That’s bunkum, BS, sophistry, weasel words, crap that is foisted upon an all too gullible public. The GOP ‘focus group’ that most probably ‘advised’ A. Scalia et al was probably tasked and paid to come up with something that would give corporations ‘rights’ in addition to the many privileges they already enjoy. Again –is it real? Or is it marjorine? 

    • Lennhart

      ‘Artificial persons’ ? WTF is that supposed to mean. Who wrote that crap? If one is a person, one is ‘real’ by definition. Robots, however, are often called ‘artificial persons’ but no one who has ever read Asimov is prepared to say that ROBOTS are now ‘people’. Even Commander DATA went on the fritz once (as I recall) A better test of AI, however, is the Turing Test! Would a corporation –AS A WHOLE —pass the Turing Test? That’s doubtful because, being a collection, a diverse list of individual investors, it could never respond as ONE in a real-time dialogue with a living, biological, REAL person! Ergo: the proposition that ‘corporations are persons’ cannot be tested by A.J. Ayer’s standard the very question is utterly fucking meaningless BS foisted upon an unsuspecting public. 

      • AtheistNavyVet

        The difference between COMMON LAW and corporate legislation IS THAT CONTRACTS HAVE PEOPLE PROMISING IN CONSIDERATION WHILE corporations are simply FASCISM in action @MoveToAmend http://www.movetoamend.org 843-926-1750 @LarryAccomplish

        • AtheistNavyVet

          contracts= common law… one way to take down the fascist corporations is to make a tort claim that has not been legislated out of existence

    • Lennhart

      That makes it so??? I don’t think so.

  • Lennhart

    Corporations have, in fact, used their access to wealth to influence campaigns in ways that individuals could never do! I know that from experience, having consulted several political campaigns in one of the nation’s largest cities. As an individual, I pay my bills! I don’t have anything left over with which to influence politicians of ANY persuasion —even Libertarians. Corporate contributions were a major motivation! It’s always about ‘buying elections’. That was major motivation behind Citizens-United. “People” can donate what they like; corporations had been constrained. But –now that corporations are people –they can be expected to PURCHASE elections outright. The word for this is FASCISM. I am reminded of A. Hitler’s infamous meeting with Krupp, Thyssen, I.G. Farben (the makers of Xyklon B). Hitler literally auctioned off the Third Reich and offered his services as Fuhrer in residence! Corporate personhood is fascism/nazism given a K-street make-over! But the end result is the same: corporations now have a great light to buy the Rei…uh… the republic!  

  • AtheistNavyVet

    Agreed below, the so called Libertarian has narrowly focused on one corporate person hood issue as if that is the only problem…. corporate greed exceeds most corporation’s by-laws, charters and purpose for being…. CORPORATIONS are not people. Corporations claim FAR MORE RIGHTS THAN most people even try to learn…843-926-1750 WHEN ELECTED TO CONGRESS MAY 7TH, I shall vote the @MoveToAmend language that MONEY IS NOT SPEECH putting an end to corporations bribing politicians and bribing voters @LarryAccomplish [email protected] Vote Green Larry for 25 million green union living wage jobs out of war NDAA 880 billion$ and sell off military assets to NATO BRING HOME ALL TROOPS TO DEFEND OUR REAL BORDERS, DEPORT CRIMINALS & PROTECT & REWARD SAFE FOOD WORKERS

  • http://PricesKarate.com/ DavePrice

    wow, this is so wrong, this guy is probably on the Receiving end of these crazy bribes destroying our country.. he is a traitor to true America!