Assemble Freely, Lose Your Rights

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads, in part

Congress shall make no law …  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unlike the Second, Fourth, and particularly Tenth Amendments, which the Supreme Court over the last few decades has treated as if the Founders were “just kidding,” defense of the First Amendment has been admirably strong by the high court.  All but the narrowest limitations on speech or assembly have been overturned, including a number of restrictions on pre-election speech.
So if we have the freedom of speech, and the freedom of assembly, one would reasonably assume that we have the freedom of speech when assembled.
Not so fast, at least according to several Democratic Congressmen.    Representatives Deutch, DeFazo, Hastings, and McDermott have introduced a proposed Constitutional Amendment (via Resolution HJR 90) that begins this way

Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

The bill goes on to ban any spending or speech at any time related to any election or ballot initiative by these corporations.  It’s obviously a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United ruling, which overturned bans on corporate spending for political speech and frustrated many on the Left who wanted to ban this one particular type of speech.
The debate over these issues has been muddled by the straw man notion that somehow the Supreme Court is giving “personhood” to corporations.  Leave this aside — it is a red herring, entirely irrelevant to the discussion.  The simple fact is that corporations are voluntary assemblies of individuals, in which individuals agree to pool their labor and money towards some goal.  Whenever one sees the word “corporation,” one can accurately substitute the words “group of individuals assembled for a purpose.”
This is why this proposed Amendment is so absurd.  In effect, it would mean that we all enjoy the full range of Constitutional rights, except when we agree to assemble and cooperate — then we lose them all.   If I as an individual bake bread in my kitchen for resale, I could still petition the state to modify regulations relevant to my activity.  If I then join together with my neighbor in a cooperative venture to bake and resell bread, does it really make sense that I would then lose my right to petition the government?
Worse, the proposed Amendment does not limit its scope to just the First Amendment.  It means that individuals, when on corporate property, might have no protection from unreasonable searches and seizures;  corporations would have no guarantee of due process or of a jury trial in civil suits;  corporate assets would no longer be protected from eminent domain seizure without compensation.  Under this provision, the Federal government could seize Apple Computer if it so desired (or even quarter troops in the Apple offices!).  This all sounds like a stalking horse for Socialism, which might seem overwrought until one realizes that Bernie Sanders is the sponsor of a similar proposal in the Senate.
I understand, even share, the authors’ stated concerns about the manipulation of government power by large corporations.   The frustration when government power is accessed by private individuals to determine winners and losers in the marketplace is the very interesting intersection point where the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and Tea Party movements are actually in close alignment.
But to argue the solution to this problem is to limit corporate speech is simply naive.   There are a myriad of avenues to influence the political process, only one of which is campaign spending.   Not a single person involved in the Fed bailouts of banks, the Solyndra loans at the DOE, the approval of health care waivers in HHS, or the regulatory decisions guiding MF Global, was actually elected.  In fact, of the two million civilian employees of the Administration, through whom most corporate influence operates, exactly one must stand for election.
Looking at recent history, the worst corporatist abuses have been largely bipartisan, and therefore arguably unrelated to election results or election spending.  Both Obama and Bush transferred hundreds of billions of dollars of private banking losses onto taxpayers, bailed out major corporations, handed out exceptions to costly rules, and tried to pick winners via government subsidies.   Going further back in time, powerful political machines dominated politics long before mass media and expensive campaigns.
Of all the possible approaches to reducing the ability of private citizens to manipulate government policy to their personal benefit, this is in fact likely the worst.  As mentioned above, there are many different avenues to exercising influence and power, of which election spending and advertising is just one.  But election spending is the most transparent of all of these approaches.  This proposed amendment would in effect substitute highly visible advertising and electioneering with backroom deals and political patronage that is far more hidden from the public eye.  A cynical person might argue that this is exactly the goal.
The ultimate problem is not campaign finance laws but the degree of power that has been taken upon itself by the state.  The government routinely exercises the power of life and death over businesses and industries.  With this much power for the taking, it is inevitable, regardless of election finance laws, that someone is going to try to wield the power, either to get a subsidy or a special exception or perhaps to block a competitor.  And those who don’t chose to wield the power for advantage may soon find they still need to petition the government to block their competitors from doing so.  Both Microsoft and Google prospered for years with almost no lobbying spending in Washington, but eventually had to build defensive lobbying efforts as their competitors sought to aim the government at them.
But I wouldn’t want it said that I am unreasonable or not open to compromise.  So I will accept the proposed amendment above if, added to it, is a provision that “any group denied Constitutional rights by Section 1 of this resolution may not be regulated in any way by Congress.”  That’s fair, right?  You can’t have Congress passing laws that affect a group and at the same time muzzle that group and eliminate their right to petition for redress.  Right?
In fact, the resolution goes on to say just the opposite.

Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

So Congress would have the right to do whatever it wants to corporations, these assemblies of Americans, and the victims are required to shut up about it and are prevented from having any redress.  Which makes it crystal clear that this proposal is not about fairness, but about yet another accountability-free power grab by politicians.
Postscript: Note that the Left’s contention that spending and speech are not the same thing  is irrelevent here.  The authors of this amendment are out and out saying that when assembled into commercial enterprises, groups of people lose their speech rights.
And anyway, I find the contention that spending limits don’t affect speech rights to be silly.  To demonstrate this, all you have to do is turn the logic to rights the Left is more passionate about than political speech, like say abortion.  Let’s say I passed a law that no person may spend more than $5 year on abortions.   Do you think this leaves abortion rights untouched?  I didn’t think so.