This year's Town Meeting will have a non-binding resolution on this issue.

Leaving aside the inappropriateness of wasting Acton's time on a national issue, this is a great issue to debate because the sponsors are so misguided.

According to the bill's sponsors, "people, not corporations, have a right to free speech."

When asked if unions would be prohibited from Free Speech as well (since they aren't people either), the proponents invariably argue that unions are different from corporations and therefore the same rules shouldn't apply.

Of course, while the sponsors derive much of their financial and staff support from unions, they either don't understand what most unions are, or perhaps are just unaware of the unintended consequences of their misguided actions.

Because, Senator Eldridge and Rep. Atkins, most unions are, in fact, corporations.

So while you don't want to restrict the free speech of your friends and supporters, your bill would do exactly that.

While this mght be a good argument in favor of this legislation, if we are going to be serious, we should just accept that restrictions on corporate free speech would be a mistake. And, perhaps Rep. Atkins and Sen. Eldridge should read and understand legislation before filing it.

Allen,

Excellent write-up but I doubt Eldridge or Atkins want to read it. Nor will they address the giant flip-flop by Obama. First he was against SuperPACs and now he wants to raise as much money with them as possible. A true leader chooses principle over expediency. Where are his principles?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

They will know all about it at Town Meeting, when I get up and cite 20 or 30 examples of local and state unions that are incorporated, and I ask them if they are aware that their proposal will restrict the free speech of their buddies. Should be fun!

The Democratic National Committee is a corporation -- its legal name is "DNC Services Corporation" -- so according to Jamie Eldridge and Cory Atkins it is a "serious and direct threat to our democracy." I agree (I assume that they meant "to our Republic" and that they know the difference). Let's make sure that the proposed constitutional amendment covers the DNC which spends hundreds of millions dollars trying to influence elections. The sooner we can shut them down, the better.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

This brings up the closed circuit that has been so deleterious to the United States. Union members are almost always Democrat voters. Democrat voters re-elect Democrat politicians. Democrat politicians vote for ever increasing fringe and healthcare benefits for union members. Union members are almost always Democrat voters.

Immense amount of money flow in a circle... union dues go to Democrat campaigns... which elect Democrat politicians... which raise union benefits... which pay union members... which pay union dues... which go to Democrat campaigns.

The cycle can be broken. Communities or states (see Wisconsin) sometimes wake up under new leadership. Sometimes the cycle is never broken, even under threat of societal breakdown (see Greece).

Your spiritual advisor,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimpterton III

This censorship thing is starting to grow on me. I think I like it! At first, as a newspaper publisher and blogger, I was highly offended, but I've come around.

I've always been annoyed by the editorials in the New York Times corporation. And since they bought the Globe, the Globe has been insufferable. I think it is time we looked into taking the free speech rights away from this greedy corporation which is making it harder for true Americans (like myself) from being heard.

Did Jamie and Cory mean “serious and direct threat to our democracy” or did they really mean “serious and direct threat to Democrats” ?

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

People:

• There is nothing inappropriate about discussion at Town Meeting of critical societal issues that happen to extend beyond Acton's borders.
• Many of us who support fair election measures, and legislation and/or a Constitutional amendment that would define people as natural persons (not synthetic entities such as corporations), and speech as expression emanating from natural persons (i.e., not money), ALSO would include unions in that category of "synthetic entities."
• I'd have preferred if President Obama could have conducted his campaign equitably without reliance on funds from SuperPacs. But we all know that in this free-for-all environment, no one could possibly compete without doing so. The criticism of "where are his principles?" rings hollow; supporters of a Republican candidate would not hesitate to defend this behavior were the tables turned.
• Charlie, surely you don't think only the DNC should be "shut down" because it "spends hundreds of millions dollars trying to influence elections"! As if the RNC doesn't?! Please, be forthright enough to acknowledge that they both spend tons of money trying to influence elections.
• The "cycle" cited by the disingenuous Rev. Pimperton is no doubt true to some extent. What he fails to mention is the analogous and opaque process in which anti-regulatory, pro-corporate-loophole lobbyists and trade associations and groups such as ALEC funnel ocean liners full of money to secure their interests.

Hi Debra,

There is nothing "inappropriate" about discussing issues that extend beyond Acton's border? Really?

I'd say instead that Town Meeting time is precious and we typically have two or more nights just trying to complete our local business. Getting more than 2 or 3% of eligible voters to show up is a challenge.

Spending an hour--or two--on issues that we have no real control over such as this one is time wasted. People who don't want to stay until 11 pm, who don't want to pay a babysitter for another night out, or who would simply rather be doing something else, should not have their time wasted on non-relevant issues.

It is hard enough getting people to come out to Town Meeting to vote on local issues. Imagine Town Meeting going three or four nights debating abortion, Obamacare, immigration, gun control, etc., etc., etc.

I suppose if an issue had to be voted on individually by Massachusetts towns, for example, if that were the process to change the Massachusetts constitution, then we'd be subject to such debates. But I don't believe that to be the case here.

This misguided attempt to overturn a Supreme Court decision belongs elsewhere.

Allen

Debra,

You sound like a well-meaning person. I sympathize with your objection to something that you feel has been "legislated" by the Supreme Court. You are in a long line with that.

But this issue in a local Town Meeting? That is a waste of valuable time and frankly an insulting co-opting of a local forum. Mis-directed at best.

About Citizen's United? I agree with the others when they point out the imbalance of this. Their anger is clearly aimed at corporations not unions and thus reveals their bias. Both are deserving of free speech but not one over the other.

But what about the LLC or the S-Corporation? These days individuals are corporations as well. I agree with Charlie, let free speech have its way with real time disclosure of those spending the money.

Like all previous campaign spending limitations, anything here would be eventually circumvented and what would then exist would be deeds done in the dark. Not a good alternative for anyone's interests.

Hi Allen, Charlie and others:

I’m well aware that most unions are corporations and would be covered by my proposed resolution calling for a Constitutional amendment.

I’ve also filed legislation to update our disclosure laws here in MA. (S304: http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00304), in which I explicitly included “labor unions” along with corporations to the entities subject to our disclosure laws in this post-Citizens United world.

(In fact, labor unions are considered associations and have always been included in our state disclosure laws; however, I specifically added unions just to make it abundantly clear to anyone who might read the bill what my position on the issue is.)

My focus is on corporate rather than union political spending because I believe it is by far the greater threat to our democracy.

Union PAC spending comes from union members who voluntarily donate money. Corporate treasury dollars, on the other hand, belong to shareholders who may or may not want their money spent on campaigns or indeed have any idea that this is happening. Because of this, unions can fairly be said to be speaking on behalf of their members (who are people); the same thing simply cannot be said about corporations.

All of that said, I believe my resolutions for a proposed Constitutional amendment as well as any disclosure laws should apply to labor unions just the same as they apply to business corporations.

Best,
State Senator Jamie Eldridge

Jamie,

The fact that you believe corporate spending is a threat to democracy is telling. It is symptomatic of the Commonwealth's long decline under Democrat rule. Legislators in many other states do not believe companies are enemies, but know that they are the lifeblood of the economy. We are losing congressional seats and population to states with business friendly politicians. Lest you forget, people who work for corporations pay most of your salary.

Your comment about union PAC money is facetious. Corporations and unions are on the same footing regarding PAC money... donations are voluntary. The same cannot be said for union dues. This is not a right-to-work state and employees have no choice in joining a union or how dues are spent.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for weighing in on this topic.

While I admire your willingness to admit that unions are covered by your legislation, I'm sure many more people will be concerned that once we silence "corporations" and "unions," what comes next?

There are plenty of non-profit corporations that exist solely to promote a political agenda. I'm betting that all of the important coordinated voices on issues such as a women's right to choose or political "think tanks," just to name two quick examples, would be covered by your proposed amendment.

What about media companies that are incorporated, like the New York Times? Will some question their right to free speech if the Constitution has conflicting language?

I'm guessing that most people would see that in this instance the cure is worse than the disease and while some might lament the "free for all" that the Supreme Court's decision has unleashed, it is still far better than the alternative.

You would be wise to withdraw your support for this ill-conceived proposal.

Allen

Jamie,

Why not do something useful for a change? The Supreme Court has spoken on Citizens United and your resolution will achieve nothing, except pander to your liberal base.

You could help justify your existence by tackling the many plagues we have in Massachusetts - pension abuse, probation department cronyism, unions against reform, state police excesses, green energy debacles, political corruption... and most recently, the unemployment benefits scandal. Why not spend your energy where a state senator can be effective? Tilting at windmills does not help us.

Your spiritual advisor,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Jamie,

Missed the scandal-de-jour... non-profit compensation abuses. Joe Kennedy and his wife make close to a million dollars a year selling Hugo Chavez' oil. Do you approve? Tell us.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Earth calling Jamie,

Will you direct your energy to pension abuse, probation department cronyism, unions against reform, state police excesses, green energy debacles, political corruption, unemployment benefits abuse and non-profit compensation rip-offs? Inquiring minds want to know.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III