Latest Developments

Video: Free Speech For People on Democracy NOW!

"Free Speech for People" Coalition Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Decision Allowing Unlimited Corporate Spending on Elections

John Bonifaz, Free Speech For People Director and Voter Action Legal Director, and Jeff Clements, FSFP General Counsel, joined Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of Democracy NOW! to discuss the latest updates in the fight to restore our Constitution and our democracy to the people.

Read More

Welcome the Monahan Brothers to Washington!

Five months ago, two brothers—both veterans and both in their sixties—set out to walk across the US for democracy.

Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, Laird and Robin Monahan disagreed strongly with the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that confirmed that “corporations are persons” and have the constitution right of “free speech” under the First Amendment. But, instead of getting cynical, they got walking.

Read More

Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Corporate Rights

The New York Times

Adam Liptak

WASHINGTON — Continuing to explore the limits of corporations’ constitutional rights, the Supreme Court on Tuesday added cases to its docket that will test the scope of companies’ rights to due process and privacy.

The new cases follow the court’s decision in January in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend money in candidate elections.

Read More

Video: Target Ain’t People

In January, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money in our elections. This video was made in response to Target’s decision to give $150,000 to an anti-gay, anti-worker candidate for the Governor of Minnesota. Watch this video on YouTube
Read More

Blagojevich and Legal Bribery

By SCOTT TUROW Published: August 17, 2010 The New York Times Chicago “With all respect to Wanda Brandstetter, the Constitutional amendment this nation most urgently requires is one that reverses the notion that unrestricted political spending deserves protection as free speech. Without that, who could fault a juror for looking around at contemporary political life
Read More