By Deb Hogshead 

Guest columnist

Published in local newspaper, Miami Valley Today, on July 7

"Together, we must restore the essence of democracy envisioned by the Founders by reevaluating the relationship between wealth and politics. A revolutionary overhaul of campaign finance laws is crucial. Public financing of elections, greater transparency in political donations, and prohibiting the use of 'dark money' … are critical."

—Chris Gibbs

In his June 20 column, Chris Gibbs did a great job describing our pay-to-play system of government and the steps needed to make sure our elected representatives are genuinely accountable to we the people, rather than to the wealthy donor class and mammoth corporations.

I agree.

To make his suggested solutions stick and prevail when challenged in court, however, we must amend the U.S. Constitution.

Foundational to the change we need is the We the People Amendment, House Joint Resolution 54 in the current Congress. This proposed amendment will make two things clear: (1) money spent on political campaigns is not protected speech and shall be regulated at all levels of government, and (2) inherent, inalienable rights belong to natural persons only, not to corporate entities created through a state chartering process.

Without this amendment, new campaign finance laws could very well be struck down as “unconstitutional.” The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that money spent on political campaign messages is protected speech (Buckley v. Valeo). In 2010, it struck down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, giving rise to Super PACs and flooding even more money into political campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). Then on June 30 of this year, the court struck down a post-Watergate law limiting fundraising and spending by political parties (National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission).

But it’s not just money in politics that should concern us. Over the years, the Supreme Court has granted corporate entities constitutional rights, rights that should be reserved for natural persons only. Besides ruling that a corporation has a 1st Amendment right to influence elections, the court has also decided a corporation has a 1st Amendment right to NOT speak, that is, to hide information it doesn’t want to share; a 4th Amendment right to refuse surprise public health inspections without a warrant; a 5th Amendment right to sue for future profits lost if a municipality places restrictions on its business; and a 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

With these so-called “constitutional” rights, a large corporation, with lots of money and the best lawyers, can make a lot trouble for local communities trying to protect public welfare, but lacking the financial resources to do battle in court.

Yes, of course, a corporation should have privileges, protections from government overreach, and statutory rights. As a creation of the state, however, a corporation should never have inherent, inalienable “constitutional” rights same as you and me.

For folks who say it’s too hard and takes too long to pass a constitutional amendment, consider the following.

We can take interim steps. For example, the Transparent Election Initiative (aka, the Montana Plan), is a citizen ballot measure that, when passed, will curb corporate political spending through a change in state law that creates corporations. Hawaii did this recently through a bill passed in the state legislature and signed by the governor. In 2024, Maine voters passed a ballot initiative banning Super PACs. All are critical interim steps, but they don’t address all the challenges associated with money in politics and so-called corporate constitutional rights. And they’re already being challenged in court.

It’s also important to remember that just because something is hard, or takes a long time, doesn’t mean it’s impossible or unworthy of our attention and effort. We all sit in the shade of a tree we didn’t plant. It took 72 years to ratify the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. It took more than 200 years to pass the 27th Amendment, which stipulates that increases in congressional pay cannot be implemented until after the next election of House members.

Let’s work for the changes Chris recommends. And let’s ensure they’re permanent by getting the We the People Amendment passed in both chambers of Congress and ratified by 38 states.

The writer is a Troy resident and a volunteer with Move to Amend Miami County.

By Move to Amend Miami County, Ohio and published in our local paper, Miami Valley Today, July 4, 2026

Move to Amend Miami County stands with Piqua and Sidney residents concerned about the consequences of the proposed data centers in their communities.

Move to Amend works to restore government to the people, beyond control of big business, through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that ends corporate personhood and states that money is not free speech.

Move to Amend believes the following principles should guide each and every one of us:

• A clean environment should be a human right.

• A business should not have the freedom to pollute the environment, but should be expected to take every precaution to protect the environment and human health and to clean up that which it has spoiled.

• Citizens should have not only the right, but the power if in the majority, to decide conditions that protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of themselves and the larger community.

• A corporation of any kind, which is created through a chartering process, should not have inherent, inalienable constitutional rights the same as area citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that spending money is free speech and that corporations have a 1st Amendment right to speak. Big tech companies have lots of money. They use their “constitutional” right to spend it to influence government decisions that limit regulation and allow the fast-tracking of approvals.

Listed below are a few big-tech spending figures based on information publicly available through OpenSecrets.org:

• $33,333,888 – Total contributions in 2024 to federal candidates, made by individuals and affiliates associated with Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies, and Meta. (OpenSecrets.org gave no information for Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company.)

• $2,571,866 – Total contributions during the 2023-2024 election cycle, from political action committees for Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies, Meta, and Alphabet.

• $57,925,000 – Total spent in 2025 on lobbying Congress, by Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir, Meta, and Alphabet.

Nondisclosure agreements are another tool used by corporations. The details of the proposed Piqua and Sidney data centers were protected by nondisclosure agreements. It is also conceivable that a data center, like any other corporate entity, could claim other constitutional rights, such as a 4th Amendment right to refuse a surprise environmental inspection without a warrant, or a 1st Amendment right to not speak, to not share with community residents information it considers proprietary.

Data centers can ruin our quality of life by consuming enormous amounts of water and energy, resulting in higher costs for area residents and environmental damage. Data center development is good for big business, but not for area citizens.

We, the residents of Miami and Shelby counties, are unfairly being expected to live with the environmental and financial consequences of data center construction and use.

Move to Amend Miami County stands in solidarity with Piqua and Sidney residents seeking transparency, accountability, and a safe, livable environment.

Move to Amend Miami County, Ohio is an affiliate of the national grassroots coalition known as Move to Amend. Learn more at www.movetoamend.org, or contact Move to Amend Miami County at [email protected].

View online at https://miamivalleytoday.com/statement-supporting-area-residents-concerned-about-proposed-data-centers/

Local MTA Affiliate Addresses Troy, Ohio City Council

At the June 15th Troy City Council meeting, volunteers with Move to Amend Miami County, Ohio provided a history lesson in advance of the nation's 250th birthday. Our founders, imperfect though they were, understood the threat to democracy posed by wealthy factions and corporations. They took turns reading quotations from our founders and early presidents.

Scroll down to read the script the team used for this effective presentation.

JUNE 15, 2026: STATEMENTS TO TROY CITY COUNCIL ON NATION’S 250TH BIRTHDAY

PREFACE: volunteer

[Holding up a $5 bill] This is money, not speech. It’s property I possess.

[Holding up a corporate charter for FirstEnergy Corp] This is a corporate charter, not a person. It’s property shareholders own.

Billionaires and large corporations use their property to influence decisions that affect us, often in harmful ways. That’s why we need to end the misguided doctrines that “money is speech” and “a corporation is a person” with inherent, unalienable “constitutional” rights. This need is neither new nor radical. In fact, our nation’s founders, however imperfect they were, understood the threats posed by wealthy factions and corporations. Tonight, in honor of our nation’s 250th birthday, we will share what founders and early presidents had to say about these threats to democracy. 

Quote 1: volunteer

I’m reading a statement made by Gouverneur Morris, in 1787, at the Constitutional Convention.

The Executive Magistrate should be the guardian of the people, even of the lower classes, [against] Legislative tyranny, against the Great & the wealthy who in the course of things will necessarily compose the Legislative body. Wealth tends to corrupt the mind & to nourish its love of power, and to stimulate it to oppression. History proves this to be the spirit of the opulent. 

Quote 2: volunteer

I’m reading a statement by James Madison, 1792, writing anonymously for the National Gazette.

A government operating by corrupt influence; substituting the motive of private interest in place of public duty; converting its pecuniary dispensations into bounties to favorites, or bribes to opponents; accommodating its measures to the avidity of a part of the nation instead of the benefit of the whole: in a word, enlisting an army of interested partisans, whose tongues, whose pens, whose intrigues, and whose active combinations, by supplying the terror of the sword, may support a real domination of the few, under an apparent liberty of the many. 

Quote 3: volunteer

I’m reading a statement from George Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address.

However combinations or associations . . . may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. 

Quote 4: volunteer

I’m reading a statement Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1796, to Edward Rutledge, youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence, a wealthy South Carolina lawyer, and politician who became governor of that state.

I love to see honest men & honorable men at the helm, men who will not bend their politics to their purses, nor pursue measures by which they may profit, & then profit by their measures. 

Quote 5: volunteer

I’m reading a statement Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1816, in a letter to George Logan, a Pennsylvania politician, farmer and friend.

I hope we shall . . . crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. 

Quote 6: volunteer

I’m reading a statement made by James Madison, in1827, to J.K. Paulding, a Navy agent who later became U.S. Secretary of the Navy.

[I]ncorporated Companies with proper limitations and guards, may in particular cases, be useful; but they are at best a necessary evil only. 

Quote 7: volunteer

In his 1833 message to Congress, Andrew Jackson, 7th president of the United States, excoriated the Second Bank of the United States, one of the largest corporations at the time, describing it as "a permanent electioneering engine" and calling for the revocation of its charter, which it had violated.

Here’s what else he had to say:

. . . the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions.

Quote 8: volunteer

In his 1837 First Annual Message, Martin Van Buren, 8th president of the United States, 1837, also addressed concerns about the corporate banking system in the United States. Here’s what he had to say:

[T]here will be neither stability nor safety either in the fiscal affairs of the Government or in the pecuniary transactions of individuals and corporations so long as a connection exists between them which, like the past, offers such strong inducements to make them the subjects of political agitation. Indeed, I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion—the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government—would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities.

Quotes 9 & 10: volunteer

There’s a bright line that extends from our founders up through the ages. I'd like to read two more quotations. They come 112 and 134 years, respectively, after our founding; however, they are consistent with our founders’ warnings and are worth sharing now.

In his 1888 annual message, Grover Cleveland said,

Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters.

Theodore Roosevelt had this to say in his 1910 New Nationalism Speech:

The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.

CONCLUDING COMMENT: volunteer

Eleven years after the Declaration of Independence, our founders crafted the U.S. Constitution. They built into the Constitution a process for amending it, which has been done 27 times. It’s time to do it again with the proposed We the People Amendment, House Joint Resolution 54 in the current Congress. The survival of our democratic republic requires the regulation of political spending to ensure that everyone—not just those with the most money—has a voice in decisions that affect us. It is also essential that we make clear, once and for all, that a corporation, as a creation of the state, is not a person with inherent, inalienable constitutional rights. Move to Amend will continue to educate Miami County residents about the need to eliminate these very threats identified years ago by our founders and early presidents. 

Corporate dark money is drowning out the voices of everyday people. The Transparent Election Initiative (AKA the Montana Plan) is a citizen‑driven push to stop it.
By rewriting corporate charters and stripping corporations of the state‑granted power to spend in our elections, this measure cuts off corporate political spending at the source. Without that power, corporations can’t hide behind the Citizens United decision to buy influence.

By Deb Hogshead

Guest Column in Miami Valley Today, January 18, 2026

The proposed data center in Piqua brings home an important fact: Corporate power and big money affect us locally—and a local response is necessary to help rein in their influence over issues that affect us directly and indirectly.

Like folks in other Ohio communities, including Sidney, Piqua residents raised objections upon learning of plans to build a data center in their hometown. Among their concerns, which I share, are threats to the environment and limited water resources, and questionable promises of economic development and stable residential electric bills. But the deal was already done, slid secretly into the community under a nondisclosure agreement.

Nondisclosure agreements are just one tool in the tech industry’s tool box.

As true of any large corporate entity, big tech companies have lots of money and a “constitutional” right to spend it—and they spend it to garner support in Congress and state legislatures for such things as limited regulation and the fast-tracking of approvals.

Big Tech can do this thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 1886 and the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision, the court has considered a corporation a person with constitutional rights. In 1976, the court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money on campaign communications is equivalent to 1^st Amendment protected speech. In 1978, it ruled in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that a corporation has a 1^st Amendment right to influence an election. More recently, the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission led to the rise of Super PACs and even more money flowing into politics, often from unnamed donors.

I list below a few figures based on information publicly available through OpenSecrets.org.

$33,333,888 – Total contributions in 2024 to federal candidates, made by individuals and affiliates associated with Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies, and Meta. (OpenSecrets.org gave no information for Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company.)

$2,571,866 – Total contributions during the 2023-2024 election cycle, from political action committees for Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies, Meta, and Alphabet.

$57,925,000 – Total spent in 2025 on lobbying Congress, by Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir, Meta, and Alphabet.

These same companies pay lobbyists to influence Ohio legislators and executives. According to the Ohio Lobbying Activity Center, Amazon currently has 7 registered lobbyists, Microsoft has 1, Meta 13, and Google 18. They are joined by lobbyists representing groups such as the Ohio Business Roundtable, which wants to streamline the permitting process for data centers, and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Ohio and the Buckeye Institute, both of which want fewer permit restrictions.

Public opposition to the proliferation of data centers has grown. So has awareness of our power grid’s limitations and the need to upgrade at considerable expense. In July 2025, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) ruled those costs should be borne by the companies that own the data centers, as opposed to expecting small businesses and ordinary ratepayers to pick up the tab. The tech industry has objected, given the investments companies have already made in Ohio. Sharing this discontent is the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, whose lawyers have appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, claiming the ruling amounts to discrimination against certain types of utility customers. 

Discriminating against a person based on race, sex, and other immutable characteristics is wrong and illegal. A corporation, however, is not a person. And a big corporation that poses risks to the quality of life in our local communities should be discriminated against, or at least held to higher expectations.  

I’m not saying Big Tech (or any corporate entity) shouldn’t have a voice. Nor am I saying a big tech company shouldn’t have privileges, “statutory” rights, and protection from government overreach. What I am saying is Big Tech’s voice should never be louder than ours or carry greater weight with our representatives. And a corporation of any kind, which is created on paper through a chartering process, should not have inherent, inalienable constitutional rights same as you and me.

If we are to regulate money in politics and end the misguided doctrine of “corporate constitutional rights,” we must pass the proposed We the People Amendment, House Joint Resolution 54 in the current Congress.

January 21 is the 16^th anniversary of the Citizens United decision. Use this day to call Reps. Mike Carey and Warren Davidson and urge them to cosponsor the We the People Amendment.

And encourage your local elected officials to go on record in support of the We the People Amendment. Given what’s happening with data centers across Ohio, municipal leaders cannot defend inaction by saying money in politics and corporate power are not relevant to their work as public servants.

By Deb Hogshead, guest columnist

If there was anything I knew as a kid about the American Revolution it was that we toppled a king. I always took pride in this fact because I have ancestors on both sides of my family who fought in the war. One of them, Isaiah Hoskinson (1749-1836), is buried in the Hupp-Hoskinson Cemetery in Licking County.

At least three veterans of the Revolutionary War are buried here in Miami County at Troy’s Rose Hill Cemetery: John W. Meredith (1761-1844), Alexander Telford (1760-1844), and Aaron Tullis (1751-1840).

These four men were either teenagers or in their mid-20s when the Declaration of Independence was signed. I know little else about them beyond a general understanding of the principles for which they fought—and for which an estimated 25,000 died.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So begins the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

To justify separation from Great Britain, our founding document lists 27 specific examples of abuses perpetrated by King George III. Listed as the first grievance, “He has refused his Assent to [approval of] Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Here are just a few others:

• “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass [sic] our people, and eat out their substance”

• “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”

• “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments”

Where are we now, 249 years later? Are we once again living under a king?

Democrat or Republican, a president is not a king. The current administration, however, is acting like one, and the majority in Congress seems to be abdicating its constitutional duty to be a check on the executive branch. But even after the President leaves office, kings will remain. These other kings have been at work for well over 100 years, thanks to a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases that have given them constitutional advantages over the rest of us. I’m speaking of the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the power brokers with the big money to influence elections and the decisions of the elected—decisions about issues such as funding for public education, access to healthcare, protection of the environment and public health, corporate use of public lands, and the privatization of government services. Their agendas put profits over the most wholesome laws necessary for the public good. Ending their rule requires us to do something revolutionary.

By revolutionary I don’t mean war. I mean a dramatic change to the U.S. Constitution, a change that embodies its aspirational preamble, which opens with the words “We the People.”

As the Declaration of Independence states, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and the people have the right to alter it, “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

If we are to have a government of, by, and for the people—as opposed to a government of, by, and for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations—we must amend the Constitution, adopting and putting into practice two additional guiding principles: a corporation is not a person with unalienable, constitutional rights, and money spent on political campaigns is not free speech and shall be regulated.

It’s time to topple the kings of today with a constitutional amendment. I can’t think of a better way to honor Isaiah, John, Alexander, Aaron, and all those who made our nation possible.

The writer is a Troy resident and a volunteer with Move to Amend Miami County.

This letter by Stephen Griffith was published May 31, 2025, in the Miami Valley Today (Troy, Ohio).

To the editor:

Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision held that corporate political contributions were the same as speech and were protected by the First Amendment, massive amounts of the “dark money” have flowed through Political Action Committees to political parties and candidates. These contributions are made to influence the actions of politicians of both parties.

These donations are made by corporations and industry groups far removed from the Miami Valley, but they have local consequences. One alarming example concerns the more than $21 million in contributions made by the owners, employees, and family members of employees of Mountaire Corp., one of the largest chicken producers in the nation, in the 2024 election cycle. These contributions resulted in the Trump administration withdrawing a planned USDA effort to limit the amount of salmonella contamination in processed poultry.

As a result, we will all be potentially exposed to higher Salmonella levels in our food. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that there are 1.35 million Salmonella infections annually, with some 420 deaths. Yet, dark money political contributions succeeded in preventing regulations that would protect all of us. We need to act to amend the Constitution to eliminate this type of blatant political influence on the part of corporations under the guise of free speech. Move to Amend is working to gain support for this amendment and to return the control of politics to the people.

Write or phone your Senators and Congressmen and urge them to support House Joint Resolution 54, the We the People Amendment to correct this situation and end the treatment of corporations as individuals.

Stephen Griffith

Troy

Heather Sturgill, a volunteer with Move to Amend Miami County, Ohio, explores how corporations have more rights than people. She calls on readers to urge their representatives to support House Joint Resolution 54, the We the People Amendment.

As we approach the May 10th anniversary of the 1886 Supreme Court’s Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company decision it is becoming increasingly clear that corporations have more rights than flesh and blood people. Though the decision itself did not explicitly grant corporations personhood, the headnote written by the court reporter stated that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision originally designed to protect freed slaves.

Section 1 of the 14^th amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In subsequent decades, this clause has been applied in a range of contexts, including to shield corporations from certain forms of government action. A notable example occurred in General Dynamics Corp. v. United States (2011), when the Supreme Court held that the government could not pursue its claims against the defense contractor without disclosing classified information essential to the company's defense. Because the evidence in question involved state secrets, the Court concluded that the proper course was to dismiss the claims, effectively protecting the corporation’s procedural rights under the due process clause.

Critics of the expanding scope of corporate rights contend that this legal doctrine has increasingly insulated powerful economic actors from accountability, even as individuals—particularly immigrants and undocumented residents—face significant hurdles in asserting their own rights.

In recent months, the Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement, often citing national security to justify withholding information. For instance, in March 2025, the U.S. designated the Tren de Aragua gang, as a terrorist organization, then rounded up over 250 supposedly Venezuelan migrants and deported them to El Salvador, claiming they were linked to the gang. However, the U.S. government did not provide families or the media with names, evidence of crimes, or affiliations, citing operational security.

The use of national security to withhold information in immigration cases is not new. Senator Chris Van Hollen recently criticized the current administration for deporting Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident. And, despite a unanimous Supreme Court decision that ordered the administration to facilitate his return, he has yet to be brought back. The administration accuses García of MS-13 gang affiliation but has not filed any charges related to that accusation, raising questions about the use of unverified allegations to justify deportations. ​

Withholding information prevents individuals from challenging their detention or deportation effectively. And, the lack of access to evidence and legal recourse raises concerns about potential abuses of power and the erosion of constitutional protections.

Now, if we contrast the actions of the U.S. administration when dealing with people, vs when dealing with corporations we see that in the last decade, the principle of corporate personhood has been used to the advantage of powerful corporations, while ordinary flesh and blood persons often face less favorable outcomes when seeking justice.

As the country marks the anniversary of the Santa Clara decision, some activists and lawmakers are calling for a reevaluation of corporate rights and their broader implications.

Contact your State level representatives (www.ohiosenate.gov and https://ohiohouse.gov/) and ask them: “In the Ohio Senate, Kent Smith and Nickie Antonio have introduced S.R. No. 93 that calls for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end ‘corporate personhood’ and ‘money as speech.’ We expect a similar resolution to be introduced in the House. Will you support this?”

Contact your representative in Congress (202-224-3121) and ask them: “Please support House Joint Resolution 54 (HJR 54). It’s a call for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that restores that fundamental promise of our Republic: government of, by, and for the people.”

Contact your Senators (Husted & Moreno 202-224-3121) and ask them: “Please to cosponsor a companion resolution to House Joint Resolution 54 (HJR 54) when it's introduced in the Senate. It’s a call for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that restores that fundamental promise of our Republic: government of, by, and for the people.”

Heather Sturgill, a volunteer with Move to Amend Miami County, writes to the Dayton Daily News to explain how Ohio House Bill 30 unfairly benefits the ultra wealthy.  

Ohio HB 30 would implement a “flat tax,” meaning teachers, home health aides, nurses, and warehouse workers would pay the same tax rate as billionaires. At first glance, this might seem fair — but it’s not. Percentages matter — and they’re relative. A flat tax is only fair if everything else — housing, food, medicine — each costs a certain % of income. But they don’t.

Example: Ohio’s Education Dept. poverty rate = $27,180 vs Musk’s Tesla compensation = $46 billion.

A $.74 Walmart apple = 0.00272% of the annual income of someone in poverty.0.00272% of Musk’s income = $1.84M for that same apple. Children’s cough syrup costs $6.99. That’s 0.0257% for that person in poverty. 0.0257% for Musk makes that same cough syrup cost = $11.5M. The cheapest Miami County apartment on Zillow = $635/month or $7,620/year. That’s 28% of a poverty-level income.28% of Musk’s income for that same apartment = about $13 BILLION.

A flat tax ignores that no other required expenses are a % of our income, essentially making this a tax break for the wealthy…that don’t NEED the tax break.

When Musk/other millionaires pay the same % of their income for apples & cough syrup as us, then we can talk about him paying the same % income tax rate. Until then, NO to HB 30.

Contact your Ohio House Representative and tell them “NO to HB 30. NO flat tax that treats billionaires like broke workers!”

- Heather Sturgill, Cincinnati

Heather Sturgill, a volunteer with Move to Amend Miami County, Ohio, made the following statement at the May 6 Troy City Council meeting:

To the editor:

People are increasingly concerned about big money in politics and the influence large corporations have on policies that affect us at the local level, such as rail transportation safety and toxic substance disposal.

In advance of the March 19 primary, members of Move to Amend Miami County surveyed candidates on the ballot for Congressional Districts 8 and 15 and Ohio House District 80. We asked candidates to answer “yes” or “no” to this question: “I support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations and other artificial entities do not have constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending should be limited through regulation.”

Here are the responses:

• Congressional District 8, Republican race: Kay Rogers answered “yes.” Incumbent Warren Davidson did not respond.

• Congressional District 8, Democratic race: Dr. Vanessa Enoch and Nathaniel Hawkins both answered “yes.” David Gelb did not respond.

• Congressional District 15, Republican race: Incumbent Mike Carey, running unopposed, did not respond.

• Congressional District 15, Democratic race: Zerqa Abid answered “yes.” Adam Miller did not respond.

• Ohio House 80: Johnathan Newman, running unopposed for the Republican nomination, did not respond. Melissa VanDyke, running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, answered “yes.”

The candidates’ full responses can be found at www.movetoamend.org/pledge2024

Move to Amend Miami County is an affiliate of the national, nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of people and organizations promoting the proposed We the People Amendment, reintroduced last spring in the 118thCongress, to affirm that constitutional rights belong to natural persons only and money spent on campaigns at all levels of government shall be regulated. You can read the proposed amendment at www.movetoamend.org/amendment.

Move to Amend neither supports nor opposes candidates, regardless of their response or nonresponse to the survey. Rather, volunteers work to educate the public about the need for the proposed amendment and explain what the amendment will and will not do.

Thank you.

Dede Wissman

Troy

Corinne Simpson, a 10^th grader at Archbishop Alter High School in Kettering, was honored March 9, 2024 for her entry in the We the People Art Contest, presented by Greater Dayton Move to Amend in partnership with the Dayton International Peace Museum.

Titled “We All Deserve to Be Heard,” Corinne’s submission captured the spirit of the contest theme, “The Democracy We Want,” and was beautifully executed using pen, alcohol markers and acrylic paint. She had entered the contest at the encouragement of her AP Government teacher, Brad Clough, who said Corinne routinely produces creative covers for assignments.

Corinne said she enjoys class discussions about different forms of government and hearing different perspectives on what needs to change in society. As she thought about entering the contest, she considered what could be improved in our democracy.

“Some people think they don’t have a voice in what’s going on,” she said. “I wanted to put that as the title because I don’t think everyone is getting heard.”   

The art contest was open to Dayton-area students in grades 9-12, with cash prizes to be awarded in three categories: visual arts, performing arts, and political cartoons. Corinne’s artwork, however, was the only submission.

“We were disappointed to find that our outreach to the schools fell short,” said Mary Sue Gmeiner, affiliate co-coordinator. “Fortunately, her entry is awesome, and so we are awarding her all of the prize money in the visual arts category and having her artwork framed.”

Two local artists also provided written critiques of Corinne’s artwork, which will be on display at the Peace Museum through April 6.

Although Corinne was unable to work art into her busy schedule this year, she intends to be back in the art room with art teacher Eric Hall, who, along with Clough, attended the reception held at the Peace Museum.

Corinne is the daughter of Tania and Roderick Simpson of Miami Township. In addition to enjoying art, she runs track and cross country. She also plays the violin and is a member of the Miami Valley Symphony Orchestra Youth Strings.

“Corinne, while our contest turned out not to be a contest, we consider you a winner,” said Deb Hogshead, contest coordinator. “And we want to remind everyone that change often begins with one person stepping up and taking action.”

For more information about our pilot art contest and what we learned from the experience, contact Hogshead at [email protected].

On October 2020 we held a participatory People's Movement Assembly (PMA) with over a hundred people from across the country who came together to discuss why and how we need to democratize the United States Constitution. 

The 2020 People’s Movement Assembly was a catalyst -- the beginning of something big -- and we invite you to sign up below to stay up to date on all things related to this project!

During the 2020 PMA we collectively identified that:

• We are in a moment of converging crises - Climate collapse, global uprisings against state violence and police brutality, and a global pandemic when most are without access to healthcare.
  
  
• What's happening now is rooted in the values defined in (or missing from) the US Constitution - An undemocratic and ultra-powerful judicial branch, lack of human rights protections, no right to vote, and a whole lot of racist language just to name a few.
  
  
• Bold, systemic change is needed - We have to know our power and be able to think outside of what we’ve been told is possible. It’s going to take courage, audacity, and a whole lot of learning and conversations to make it happen. But the only thing we have to lose is our chains. 
  
  
• We have to have a vision and a plan - We learned that when constitutions around the world are re-imagined (on average other countries rewrite their constitutions every 19 years!) they’re more democratic when the Movement has a clear vision of what they want in their constitution. We have been building this vision for over ten years, and we continued it this weekend. 
  
  
• People want a constitution that protects human rights, not just property rights. We like a lot of what’s in the Bill of Rights, (with some changes and exceptions), but the rights should extend further. People want a right to healthcare, housing, rights of nature, gender equity, a right to vote, and a whole lot more. 
  
  
• We don't have to start from scratch. We can get over American exceptionalism and take inspiration from the constitutions of other countries, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and the 2nd Bill of Rights proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

We have a lot of political muscle to build to be prepared to democratize the constitution. We’re not proposing Move to Amend are the ones to do it alone, nor that it should be done right now. But there are people who want to restrict rights and create room for more authoritarianism, and they’re planning for a constitutional convention. We need to have a plan too. If we don’t, things aren't going to turn out well.

We’re moving forward on this work, we’re creating a strategy, and if you liked the 2020 PMA, there’s a lot more where that came from. Sign up below to stay up to date on the latest news and future People's Movement Assemblies and our Toward a People's Constitution program.