This is so typical of these Senators and the majority on Beacon Hil--(and BTW, the poll cited in this article was not the only poll taken on this issue). Winchester Town Meeting had the good sense to understand that this SC ruling was REALLY about Amercian citizens' second amendment rights to FREE SPEECH even though all the smoke and mirrors fuss about it tried to implicate something else--and our Town Meeting members voted accordingly. This ruling was not dangerous to our democracy, it just allowed the PEOPLE who make up corporations & PACS (YES, those groups ARE MADE UP OF PEOPLE) to financially support political candidates the same way that unions, and media & Hollywood PACS do. This is just another example of why we need more BALANCE of legislators at the State House.

Making my own correction: should have referred to the FIRST amendment right of free speech in the above post.

To quasimodo: You said, "Corporations are made up of people"--you're right--that was my point exactly; so corporations should have a right to speak as a group of people. To BAV: The discussion at TM was not ONLY about whether the issue was appropriate for TM consideration (it wasn't). It was ALSO about the fact that the SC ruling was made in defense of FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Perhaps you missed that part of the discussion.

@JT

...but they are NOT people. Maybe you overlooked the two questions I asked at the end of my comment?

Although I don't live in Winchester, this subject was submitted to the Beverly City Council a few weeks ago by a group called "Move to Amend". They attempted to convince council members to agree to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision re: Citizens United. It is clearly and undeniably an effort to limit freedom of speech during elections just as McCain Feingold did. The Beverly City Council rejected "Move to Amend" by a vote of 6-3. This was and is just another ruse by left-wing activists to demonize corporations and others from becoming part of the political scene. The people behind this movement are the usual suspects being backed by George Soros & Co.

Anything to keep the thieves in office. The quoted senator is part of the machine that is wrong too.No othe politicans to ask? The writer of this story must be too.

Many organizations are fostering grassroots efforts across the Commonwealth to call on Congress to start the amendment process and clarify that money is not speech and that people, not corporate entities hiding their owners, are entitled to free speech. Amend 2012, Common Cause, Free Speech for People, League of Women Voters, MassVOTE, Move to Amend, and Public Citizen are among them.

After the bipartisan vote by the state senate, the house of representatives concurred at the very end of the session, to make Massachusetts the 7th state to send a resolution to Congress calling for a Constitutional Amendment. Over 65 local towns and cities in Massachusetts have also approved resolutions. The Common Cause website is a good source of up-to-date information.

It amazes me that many of the same groups that think free health care is a 'right' don't mind limiting other group's First Ammendment rights.

groups'

To quasimodo: Your questions were not overlooked. The bottom line is still that corporations are made up of people--the people in corporations can get married and can get drafted--and there would be no corporations without the people who make them up. Your argument is all semantics. To BAV: The "truth" is that FREEDOM OF SPEECH was ALSO a part of the discussion at TM and ALSO part of the reason this issue was indefintely postponed. I know because I was not only present for the entire discussion, but contributed to it. There is no reason to stifle citizens' first amendment rights (whether or not they are part of a corporation) when every citizen also has the right to research, verify, and make his/her own judgement as to what is fact and what is fiction in whatever they hear.

@JT

So, we both agree to the fact that corporations are made of people. HOWEVER, a big however, if the people in these corporation can, as you point out, get married or get drafted, corporations cannot. I have yet to see a corporation have children or getting shot in combat. Do corporations have souls? This is not semantics, these are facts. Corporations have become "people", thanks to the semantics of 5 diluted, activists judges, who have stretched the definition of "people." A huge majority of Americans of either parties (and no parties at all) seem to think so...

@OldTowny

Just to pick up from your laundry list, the 5th Amendment talks only about "a person." Nowhere do I read "a corporation." But maybe, since I am not a constitutional lawyer, I misread?

I think the issue is that the monetary limits on what corporations can contribute (or rather the lack of such limits) is not the same as the monetary limits for contributions by individuals. Also- I think this issue may be addressed and eliminated when the Supreme Court in the near future has to address the campaign contributions by foreign corporations (or perhaps foreign governments) which are also not limited under the Citizens United decision. Unless of course everyone thinks that these entities should also have the same rights to influence our political system on the same basis as VOTING US citizens. (this is from Justice Souter not my own opinion)

And just fyi- in the Tax Code, a "person" refers to a corporation, trust, partnership, individual, etc.- an "individual" means a living breathing person. Maybe that clarification will clear things up.

To quasimodo: My guess is that you didn't think the SC judges were activists when they ruled on "Obamacare"--of course you probably didn't think that was about American people's rights either. The ruling actually got around the constitutionality issue of people's rights by calling the health care "mandate" a "TAX". (Now the law is actually full of taxes many of which have NOTHING to do with health--like the 3.8% tax on selling one's home going into effect very soon--read the bill--but interpreting the mandate itself as a tax is certainly questionable at best.) You seem to be OK with Americans losing their 1st amendment freedom of speech rights; are you also OK with Americans being told by government what to buy, what to eat, whether they can honor their religious beliefs through their actions, and/or other government mandates on individuals' personal freedoms? This is socialist ideology, and it's daily falling apart in many European countries, just as it has in so many other countries before this. Most Americans realize our country's republic is a much better system even though it's not perfect--in fact, so do the thousands of people who immigrate to our country to escape oppressive socialist systems they leave behind them. (If you don't believe that, ask anyone who's moved or escaped from that type of system to live in America.)

EXACTLY: "...the Constitution can be changed. It has been done 27 times so far, look at Article V for instructions.
If you think something should be a right then amend the Constitution until then I won't consider it a right.
How it is everywhere else doesn't concern me much. I'm an American and would like to play by the rules of America."

Who’s "we," OldTownie? The Constitution surely does not say that, but the IRS does.
According to USC › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 79 › § 7701, the term “United States person” means

(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation,
(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E) any trust if—
(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.

So, if, for a moment, we go along with the IRS’s definition, an individual (a person so named by the IRS to differentiate him or her from the rest) can donate for national elections,

a) $2,500 to each candidate or candidate committee per election
b) $30,800 to national party committee per calendar year

Therefore, any PAC, corporation, union, etc, should also, as “persons,” abide by these limits. The problem with this logic is that the IRS is a branch of the Government, which in turn does the bidding of the corporations.

If you would bother to re-read my above comment, you 'd see that I also included PAC to abide by the individual limits set by the IRS. ;~)

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. The IRS considers that (see my comment above) A) through E) are "persons," and an "individual-person" is only allowed to give $2,500 per election and $30,800 per year to a national committee, so should it be for the PACs and super PACs.

I assume that your calling yourself "OldTownie" would indicate that you have been on this Earth, like myself, for some length of time, and therefore you are wise to the fact that these PAC and SuperPAC, although they do not donate directly to their candidates, do work hand-in-hand with them and their committees.