As a result of a petition presented to them, the Woodstock Selectboard Tuesday night agreed to include a new election year related measure for consideration at the Woodstock Annual Town Meeting in March.
A group of Woodstock citizens has been gathering signatures via petition in recent weeks so that Woodstock voters may express their personal point of view concerning the question of “Are corporations people?” This relates to the current widespread use of “big money” to influence or direct outcomes of elections.
There was some doubt by organizers as to whether the signatures could be gathered in time – January 26th -the date the petition would have had to be complete with 140 signatures, in time for the Town Meeting Warning. But, that is now a lesser point even though Woodstock resident Chris Lloyd says the petitioners had gathered close to 70 signatures by Tuesday.
Despite not yet having the full number of signatures, Woodstock resident William Boardman presented the petition — as is — to the Selectboard, asking them to agree to place the item on the Town Meeting Ballot even without the requisite number due by January 26th. This is because the Selectboard can legally vote to simply place any particular item on the Ballot with or without a petition, although clearly there was an indication of enough interest to do so.
Boardman said the battle of the so-called “Super PACs” (Political Action Commitees) in the 2012 Republican Primary race shows corporate money has far too much influence on the electoral process. Also, says Boardman, there are currently no disclosure requirements for these large corporate donations.
The Woodstock grassroots effort is a local response to the” Citizens United” decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, which essentially ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individual people. It also means the federal government cannot put limits on corporate political campaign contributions. Critics of the Supreme Court decision say the ruling erroneously equates money with free speech, thereby allowing “big business” to have an unfair impact on elections.
Boardman commented on the 2010 ruling, ” (The) Citizens United (decision) has unleashed an amazing amount of money into the electoral process and further diminished voters’ rights and impact,” He added, “It cuts to the heart of a Democratic Republic, and if it’s not set right, it’s over.”
Selectboard member Preston Bristow said the Selectboard usually doesn’t get involved in politically divisive issues. However, he noted his personal disgust with the Super PAC process. Selectboard member Bruce Gould added that he, too, is “disgusted with how the system is being run, those who run it, and those running for office.” He said that maybe this is a chance for the town to make a statement on the matter.
“I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing it on the Ballot,” Gould said.
The final vote was 3-1 in favor, with John Doten voting against and Bob Holt abstaining.
According to Boardman, about 45 other Vermont towns will be considering similar ballot items at their own Town Meetings. The wording on the petition is as follows. ( The language, as it will appear on the ballot, may be different but the intent is the same(:
“Whereas corporations are NOT people, and whereas money is NOT human speech, SHALL the Town of WOODSTOCK urge that all out elected representatives, take all possible actions to restore elections to the people, including an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that affirms that under our Constitution, money is not speech and corporations are not persons; and further, that upon approval of this resolution at the annual Town Meeting SHALL the town send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives within thirty days of passage of this measure?”
Julia Carlisle
Woodstock Early Bird 
Posted by Rachel Kahn on January 19, 2012 at 16:42
Yes, yes, yes! Thankfully there are those among us who have the knowledge and presence of mind to bring this issue forward; for the people.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Posted by Dorothea Mongulla on January 19, 2012 at 17:07
The dictionary says a corporation is an association of PEOPLE created by law.
I believe you are referring to Mitt Romney’s comment. A corporation is people…they may not act ethically and greed may be their main drive at times, but they are people. Any millionaires I know never seem to think they have enough money. I think when you are rich you know that staying rich can be a real concern. I am not against rich people.
I admire anyone who has worked hard to accomplish much. And I strive to do the same.
I don’t know how the superpacs were ever voted into existence…but they are here.
How can they legally be changed at this point? I am surprised that they became law because one donater can hold a lot of influence over a politician.
LikeLike
Posted by C. Durfee on January 19, 2012 at 17:09
to me, it is a no brainer if we want to keep our Republic for individuals , not Corporations.
LikeLike
Posted by Chris Silva on January 19, 2012 at 17:50
This is EXACTLY how the amendment proposed by Senator Sanders will gain traction and overturn the grievous error made by the Supreme Court. We must act locally and move it along!!
Well done Select board!
LikeLike
Posted by William Boardman on January 19, 2012 at 18:06
Thanks for the support — tell your friends and be sure to vote.
While it is true that a corporation is an ASSOCIATION of people, the corporation itself is NOT a person in any rational sense of the word “person” — except that the US Supreme Court has chosen to use the word irrationally. A corporation is a legal fiction of a person that the court has given increasingly human rights, culminating in the Citizens United decision which gives corporations and real people to spend as much as they want to influence elections.
This situation is fundamentally anti-democratic. Presumably Romney knew he was being ridiculous when he said “corporations are people, my friend” — otherwise he doesn’t understand the issue, which would be a problem of competence.
LikeLike
Posted by Pat on January 19, 2012 at 19:43
Very proud of our Selectboard members that agreed to add this item to the agenda on the basis of its merit alone. Thanks.
LikeLike
Posted by A. E. Norton on January 19, 2012 at 21:23
It’s absurd to posit that corporations are people. Always has been. But who could be surprised at the decision, given the composition of the Supreme Court? Bureaucracies (I worked at several in Washington) do things that ordinary individuals would never do. So do corporations. The commonality between corporations and bureaucracies: people acting in large groups, with no single person accountable, can be ruthless, immune to reason, and even amoral (I witnessed many examples). The power of a large group of people acting in concert (or acting as few leading persons decree) is far greater than the sum of its parts. A company with 10,000 employees and lots of money is far more influential than 10,000 individuals could ever be. The absurd Supreme Court decision makes a mockery of the First Amendment. The founding fathers couldn’t foresee everything, and they surely never foresaw how money could subvert the electoral system on which this republic depends.
LikeLike
Posted by Margaret on January 20, 2012 at 09:29
This is so important! I, too, am pleased and proud that our Selectboard has chosen to place this item before the people of our town.
LikeLike
Posted by Jon Estey on January 20, 2012 at 11:22
If corporations are people, then Mitt Romney is a serial killer!
LikeLike
Posted by P. G. Behr on January 21, 2012 at 12:35
I assume that unions will be barred from Super-Pac activities along with corporations, if Mr. Boardman’s initiative is successful. Or are unions people?
P. G. Behr
LikeLike
Posted by William Boardman on January 21, 2012 at 15:36
The Supreme Court’s decision in “Citizens United” released unregulated, unlimited spending by corporations and unions alike. Narrow partisans tend to try to deflect the argument to unions. The issue is money distorting electoral politics, regardless of source.
LikeLike
Posted by david schwartzman on January 22, 2012 at 09:32
I assume the spelling will be corrected
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on January 22, 2012 at 16:52
I assume it will, too! 🙂 WEB
LikeLike