I will believe a corporation is constitutionally equivalent to a person when one is sent to jail - the Massey coal-mining company, for example.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Like most lefty ideas, it's not really liberal.  It would actually make goal of bringing corporations under both the regulation of the law and the marketplace more difficult.

A corporation should be able to maintain both the rights and responsibilities of personhood.  Our Constitution is largely based on the primacy of private property as a foundation of rights.  That's why we have amendments protecting property from undue intrusion by the government and a system of torts protecting us from one another.  Removing corporate personhood removes corporations rights from both ends of the stick.  They end up in legal la-la land where the legitimacy of any suit against can be called in to question.  On the flip side they have no legal rights of defense if you remove thier rights of property ownership and protection under the law, which is rooted in legal personhood.  So, it removes our right of protection from the excesses of corruption, and it removes thier rights of protection from the excesses of populism.  What you are saying is of course is you want to call into question the personhood not of YOUR corporation, but the one you don't like or have some problem with.

They already are.  They can be brought under civil suit. - Itself a product of thier personhood that goes away if you remove corporate personhood.

Non-sense.  All unions of cooperation, be they labor, industrial corporation, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving are absoulutely entitled to legal personhood and all the rights entailed.  The only people who don't agree are lefties who understand neither the law or the intent of the Constitution.  The goal of the Sanders proposition is the exact opposite of what would actually happen were it to pass.

They already do and take advantage.  And every time they take advantage they further remove any sense of transparency in corporate donations.

All tax code, whether state or federal, define a corporation as a person.  Same thing for individuals, limited liability companies, and partnerships.   I don't understand the proposed amendment.  Citizens United vs. FEC overturned the the already weakened McCain–Feingold Act.  Thus, the proposed amendment is already dead so what is the point of signing something.  We cannot have it both ways.  Treat entities as people for tax purposes and deny these same entities rights under the First Amendment has no value.  What we need are politicians that understand the Constitution and not politicians just making up shit that will create more shit.  For every action there is an equal and opposite action.  This is a pointless proposed amendment to our Constitution.  A waste of time that will cost taxpayer money.  Doesn't your representative have more important things to do than placate dumb assess?  Wasting time and money on dumb asses is a dumb ass proposal.

Being able to go to jail is not in the definition of a person just based on the dictionary.  Corporations have lost their existence and paid a heavier price than any sovereign individual could ever afford in the United States.  Maybe you should be angry at German corporations that participated in the Holocaust and American people still pay a premium for their goods and services without a thought.  Volkswagen, for example.

What you propose is ridiculous.  You left out the govenment has put corporations on ice for the amount of a sentencing?  E.F. Hutton, for example.  Notice how E.F. Hutton got the death sentence from the government.  And that was just from kiting deposits for a day.  Kiting that was the equivalent of interest free loans.  Kiting that was in violation of the law yet without any victims.  What did General Motors get from the government for just being a loser?  GM is a person too.

I find it interesting but not suprising that Bernie Sanders is putting forth a bill against 'big business' influencing our electorate with money, but Bernie Sanders is not concerned with 'big labor' influencing our electorate with money?? But thats only natural, seeing that labor unions contribute huge sums of money to democrats. Didn't see labor unions mentioned in his bill. Go figure!

 "a waste of time"..

Here's why:

 The Occupy Wall St. movement is tied to it, and in an election year, no politician in their right mind wants to be aligned with the Occupy Wall St movement except for Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders because they are safe in their respected districts comprised largely of liberal/socialist constituents.

The politically engaged know that Bernie Sanders' bill is a co-opting of the Occupy Wall St. movement.  Which by the way, is a violent movement and not protected under the 1st admendment's requirements of 'peaceable assembly'.

Amendment I. - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Futhermore, the occupiers are violating the constitutional rights of others by blocking trade ports, and business store fronts that hinder trade and commerce; which is protected by the Constitution. Basically, a person or group of people cannot infringe on the Constitutional rights of others just because they want to 'occupy' somewhere. 

The occupy movement has been praised by democrats Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and Bernie Sanders. From the onset, Pelosi remarked that the occupy movement was "vibrant, spontaneous, and will be effective". So, with that said, the Democrats are aligned with the occupiers.

Pelosi's 'occupy' support:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-supports-occupy-wall-street-movement/story?id=14696893

Obama's 'occupy' support:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-occupy-wall-street-we-are-their-side_598251.html

Here is a list of 'occupy wall street' supporters:

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/

 The occupy movement has proven it is nothing more than an amalgumation of anarchists, socialists, and communists making ridiculous, non-sensical demands like the absolution of ALL debt foreign and domestic, equal pay for working and non-working people, single-payer health care, and a whole litany of socialistic ideals they want put into law. The occupy movement is not filing for permits to protest, occupiers are in fact blocking entrances to workplaces, thus violating peoples right to freedom of movement, blocking major trade ports, they are fighting with police, drug usage amongst its members, urinating and defecating on the streets and sidewalks, littering, sexual acts in public, and destruction of private property.

Since these incidents have occured, none of the politicians listed above have came out a denounced these activities. Wonder why? Fundamental transformation?

Bernie Sanders co-opting the occupy movement here:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/17/bernie-sanders-occupy-protests-pushing-obama-to-stand-with-working-people/

http://www.politicususa.com/en/bernie-sanders-occupy-wall-street

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-16/politics/30285586_1_twitter-tweet-protests

Anyone that has been following politics for any length of time knows that the "Independent" Bernie Sanders is a self-admitted Socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Sanders is a vehement supporter of public labor unions and social justice groups like Jim Wallis' Sojourner community organizers. Community organizers...sound familiar?

Again; the irony is, Bernie Sanders is against 'big business' and its monetary influence in our government, But Sanders has no problem with 'big labor' and it's monetary influence in our government. Hypocritical? you be the judge.

Like Democrat congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who is against any war levied against our enemies abroad, Bernie Sander's is against any free-market solutions as his senatorial record reflects.

  Bernie Sanders addressing the Democratic Socialists of America at a "big labor" meeting in Detroit.

.