@Tom Interesting take on it all ... I think you might be surprised at who you would find in attendance if you went to a Reading 99 percent meeting.

Karl, the answer to your first question... yes. Perhaps in the strictest legal sense corporations and unions are a "free" association of people, but really, come on now. People working for corporations simply want a job. And my 17 year old daughter had to join the union to work at Stop & Shop. SuperPACs are the direct spawn of the Citizens United decision. I haven't heard much support on either side of the political fence for them.

Donna, this group is not talking about Super PACs. Nor am I. Money in politics has indeed ruined our process. That says more about the people we elect than the system though. And it says volumes about us as voters. If we are too lazy to evaluate those running on their merits as a representative, and instead believe everything that a PAC (or our neighbors for that matter) puts out about a candidate, then shame on us. We get what we deserve. The first amendment to our Constitution denies the government the ability to limit free speech. Once we go down that road, we are no longer a free people. And you can't limit the speech of one class of people while not limiting that of others. Why should the Sierra Club (a free association of people) get to lobby and advocate for - and donate too or spend money on behalf of - candidates, but Caterpillar (another free association of people) shouldn't? This is fundamental to our national character. Are we all equal under the law or not?

Talk about timely. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288345/romney-right-corporations-jonah-goldberg

A snipet: "All corporate personhood means is that corporations are legal entities that have certain rights or 'standing' under the law. The law does this for several reasons, but first among them is the simple fact that people don’t lose their rights when they associate in groups, whether it’s a corporation, a labor union, a nonprofit organization, or even a newspaper."

"What I find most fascinating about the debate over corporate personhood is the fact that the people who defend corporate personhood don’t anthropomorphize big business nearly as much as those who oppose it. After all, if Justice Stevens is right about corporations not having beliefs, feelings, and desires, why do we hear so much about 'corporate greed.' Non-human entities can’t be greedy, can they?"

People don't lose their rights when they associate in groups. Indeed.

Karl, If the group is talking about Citizens United, then I would argue that includes Super PACs since without CU,Super PACs couldn't exist. You say that money in politics has ruined our process, but that isn't the argument made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the CU decision. They specifically said that independent spending does not give rise to corruption.
The Montana Supreme Court just upheld their state law that bans corporate spending in state and local campaigns. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html
The Sierra Club, like all 501c3s, is fairly restricted in the amount and types of lobbying they can engage in, or they risk compromising their tax exempt status. It's hard to see the comparison between a Sierra Club like organization (of which I woud include groups like the NRA) who truly are membership organizations. Individuals pay money to the organization to belong. Who are the persons of Caterpillar? The shareholders? The shareholders of public corporations are largely amorphous mutual funds. It's hard to see the argument that Catepillar is a free association of 'people' based on this.

A comment in this thread has been deleted by the editor. Please, no vague, unfounded personal attacks. It's fine to debate things here, but please keep the discussion to things that can be backed up by fact.

Happy to see that you decided against running for Board of Selectmen.

Karl Weld:
To Whom It May Concern, I am indeed not running for Selectman this year. For those who have offered support, thank you. I will have a blog post with details.

Sorry leanstoright, the deadline has come and gone and as you can see from Mr. Weld's comment above, he decided against running, we're all still waiting for his blog post explaining why he chose to not run.

Put simply, John, it was not the right time for my family for me to run. I have 3 young children with many interests and activities, a wife with a home business and a job with unpredictable hours. This decision was not taken lightly, I assure you. And I have not lost any interest in voluntarily serving this community. I will continue serving on the Economic Development Committee (hopefully putting my 20+ years in advertising and marketing to good use), putting forward proposals that will lead to greater economic growth – and the revenue that goes with it. I will still serve as a Town Meeting Member for as long as my neighbors continue to honor me with their vote. I will still advocate for fiscally prudent budgeting. And I will run for Selectman when the time is right for my family. Again, thanks to those who feel I would serve the community well. I look forward to your continued support moving forward. (P.S. the blog post is in the works. Editing for typos and the like.)