Move to Amend survey: Matthew Andrews responds

Move to Amend

Q. (Y/N) 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.

A. Yes

Q. (Y/N) I will use my office to support the Movement to Amend the Constitution by passing resolutions, proposing legislation, and publicly speaking out about the need for this Amendment.

A. Yes

Q. How will you use your public office to end corporate constitutional rights and big money in politics?

A. I support public funding for elections so candidates are not depending on endless fundraising from wealthy donors. One of my first activities in politics was to support the Clean Elections Law which was passed by a citizen’s referendum in Massachusetts in 1998. Election day ought to be a national holiday so working people can vote. I would also move to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act which limits our rights to collective action in the workplace and allows companies to intimidate workers that may wish to choose union representation. I would re-introduce the portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that were recently overturned due to their targeted application to southern states. Gerrymandering and racially biased voter supression happens in the north as well! The Federal oversight created by the Voting Rights Act ought to be applied to all states. This would make it constitutional as well. Finally, I would support public funding to print and broadcast equal information on all ballot qualified candidates. The presidential debates should be sponsored by an independent and neutral organization that will not exclude popular independent candidates.

Q. What is Your Position on the 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision?

A. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United was a shameful act of judical activism. Allowing unlimited independent expenditures during elections means that corporations, which only represent enormous concentrations of wealth, can drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. I am also opposed to the Buckley v. Valeo decision (1976) which overturned overall campaign spending caps. Money is not speech. The Supreme Court must allow Congress to create a balanced elections system. Just as we say “one person, one vote” we must also say “every voice counts” and “money is not merit.”

Q. Any Additional Comments (optional)

A. Justice Louis D. Brandeis said, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Be Sociable, Share!
Matthew Andrews

Leave a Reply