It’s not enough to reverse Citizens United. A constitutional amendment is needed: Greg Coleridge

Cleveland.com | January 29, 2025

FILE - The Supreme Court in Washington, June 30, 2024. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) AP

The Supreme Court decision of “money equals free speech” predates Citizens United by more than four decades (i.e., the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision) and “corporate constitutional rights” (i.e., the 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision) by more than a century.

There was no democratic paradise before Citizens United. Corporations and the super-rich had much greater political power than the average person prior to 2010. Think of the failed efforts to hold banking corporations accountable for making risky loans and misrepresenting the quality of loans that led to the 2007-09 Great Recession, the ongoing decades-long failure to convert to renewable energy sources to ensure a livable world in the face of political pressure from fossil fuel corporations, and the never-ending quest to counter the power of insurance corporations opposed to creating an affordable, comprehensive and universal health care system.

Money as free speech means those with most money have the most political influence and those with little money have the least influence. Citizens United only reduced some of the legal hurdles for the super wealthy and corporate entities to gain greater political influence.

Citizens United expanded only one corporate constitutional right – the corporate constitutional right to spend/invest money in elections. There are numerous other never-intended Court-granted rights to corporations that continue to threaten the health, safety, welfare and self-rule of people and communities. These include the First Amendment right not to speak, Fourth Amendment search and seizure, Fifth Amendment takings and 14th Amendment due process and equal protection rights.

Corporations are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. While imperfect on many other issues, the Founders understood that corporate entities were artificial legal creations of the state and needed to be publicly defined and controlled, originally at the state level. They were meant to be tools of We the People and our elected representatives to provide goods and services.

As the Ohio Supreme Court stated in a case dissolving a corporation for violating the terms of its charter, “The time has not yet arrived when the created is greater than their creator.”
Volunteer Sign the Motion to Amend Donate