In a democracy, the voice of the people is paramount, yet the growing influence of corporations threatens to drown out the voices of individual citizens. The proposed “Corporations Are Not People Act” addresses this critical issue by reaffirming that constitutional rights, such as free speech, are intended for living, breathing individuals, not corporate entities. This legislation is essential to safeguard our democratic principles, ensuring that political contributions and lobbying efforts are driven by the will of the people, not by corporate interests.

The core stipulations of this Act are straightforward yet powerful. It unequivocally states that corporations are not protected by the Constitution as living persons, thereby eliminating their claim to free speech rights. Moreover, it prohibits all corporate financial contributions to political campaigns and Political Action Committees (PACs), and bans corporate lobbying efforts aimed at Congress. Instead, only natural persons who are citizens and at least 18 years of age may contribute to political campaigns or PACs, with a maximum contribution limit of $10,000 per election period.

The urgency of this legislation cannot be overstated. Corporate influence in politics has reached unprecedented levels, undermining the democratic process and skewing policy decisions in favor of those with the deepest pockets. By enacting the “Corporations Are Not People Act,” we can restore the integrity of our elections and ensure that elected officials are accountable to their constituents, not corporate donors.

We call on our lawmakers to sponsor and champion this legislation. It is time to reclaim our democracy and reaffirm that it is the people, not corporations, who hold the ultimate power in our nation. This Act is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative, vital for the health and future of our democratic system. Let us take this crucial step together, ensuring that every citizen’s voice is heard and valued equally in the halls of power.

---

Corporations Are Not People Act

Title I: General Provisions

Section 101: Short Title

This Act may be cited as the “Corporations Are Not People Act.”

Section 102: Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to clarify the distinction between corporations and natural persons, ensuring that constitutional rights intended for living individuals are not extended to corporations, and to regulate corporate influence in political processes.

Title II: Legal Definitions

Section 201: Definitions

For the purposes of this Act:

• Corporation: Any entity established under the laws of the United States or any state, including but not limited to companies, associations, partnerships, and other similar entities.
• Natural Person: A living, breathing human being.
• Political Campaign: An organized effort to influence the decision-making process within a specific group, particularly regarding the election of candidates to public office.
• Political Action Committee (PAC): An organization that raises money privately to influence elections or legislation, particularly at the federal level.
• Lobbying: Any attempt by individuals or private interest groups to influence the decisions of government, typically in the legislative or executive branches.

Title III: Constitutional Clarifications

Section 301: Corporations as Legal Entities

Corporations are recognized as legal entities but are not natural persons. Therefore, they do not possess constitutional rights afforded to natural persons under the U.S. Constitution.

Section 302: Free Speech Rights

Corporations do not have free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The protections of free speech are reserved for natural persons.

Title IV: Political Contributions and Expenditures

Section 401: Prohibition on Corporate Contributions

Corporations are prohibited from contributing any financial resources, directly or indirectly, to any political campaign, candidate, or Political Action Committee (PAC).

Section 402: Restrictions on Individual Contributions

Only natural persons who are citizens of the United States and 18 years of age or older may contribute to political campaigns or PACs.

• Contributions by individuals shall not exceed $10,000 to any single political candidate or PAC during any election period.
• An election period is defined as the time from the official announcement of a candidate’s campaign until the conclusion of the election.

Section 403: Enforcement and Penalties

• Any corporation found in violation of Section 401 shall be subject to fines equal to twice the amount of the illegal contribution.
• Individuals found in violation of Section 402 shall be subject to fines and potential imprisonment, as determined by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Title V: Lobbying Restrictions

Section 501: Prohibition on Corporate Lobbying

Corporations are prohibited from engaging in lobbying activities directed at members of Congress or federal agencies.

Section 502: Individual Lobbying

Lobbying activities are only permitted by natural persons who must register with the appropriate regulatory body and adhere to all disclosure requirements.

Section 503: Enforcement and Penalties

• Corporations found in violation of Section 501 shall be subject to fines and restrictions on future business operations with the federal government.
• Individuals who fail to register or disclose lobbying activities as required under Section 502 shall be subject to fines and potential imprisonment.

Title VI: Implementation and Review

Section 601: Implementation Timeline

This Act shall take effect 180 days after its enactment to allow for necessary adjustments and compliance measures.

Section 602: Review and Report

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) shall review the implementation of this Act and submit a report to Congress within two years of its enactment, including recommendations for any necessary amendments or additional legislation.

Section 603: Severability

If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.

Title VII: Miscellaneous Provisions

Section 701: Amendments to Other Laws

Any laws or provisions in conflict with this Act are hereby amended to the extent of the conflict to ensure consistency with the provisions of this Act.

Section 702: Rulemaking Authority

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to implement and enforce the provisions of this Act.

Section 703: Authorization of Appropriations

Such sums as may be necessary are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to carry out the provisions of this Act.

---

This proposed legislative framework seeks to reinforce the distinction between corporations and natural persons, ensuring that constitutional rights and political influence are reserved for living individuals. By restricting corporate contributions and lobbying activities, the “Corporations Are Not People Act” aims to reduce corporate influence in politics and enhance the integrity of the democratic process.

Personal Data Ownership Act

As society rapidly advances into the digital era, the concept of personal property is evolving beyond physical assets to encompass the vast amounts of data generated by individuals. In an age where browsing history, clicks, location data, and shopping habits are meticulously collected by corporations, the need to reassess personal property rights in relation to data is more pressing than ever.

The Modern Dilemma: Data as Personal Property

Traditionally, personal property rights have been well-defined, encompassing physical goods and real estate. However, the rise of digital technology has introduced a new dimension of personal assets: data. Every interaction online—whether it’s a search query, a social media post, or a purchase—generates data that companies eagerly collect and analyze. This data is valuable, often forming the basis for highly profitable business models.

Yet, despite its intrinsic value, individuals typically have little control over their own data. Companies accumulate vast quantities of personal information, using it to target advertisements, influence purchasing decisions, and even make critical business decisions. This imbalance raises a fundamental question: Shouldn’t individuals have ownership over their own data?

The Right to Control and Profit

The argument for data ownership is grounded in the principles of personal autonomy and property rights. Individuals should have the absolute right to review, edit, or delete any information that corporations collect about them. This control ensures that personal data remains accurate and secure, reducing the risk of misuse or exploitation.

Furthermore, individuals should have the right to profit from the sale or transfer of their data. Just as one can sell a physical asset, personal data should be treated as a commodity that individuals can monetize if they choose. This shift would not only empower individuals but also foster a more equitable digital economy where the benefits of data collection are shared.

Proposed Legislative Framework

To address these concerns, a comprehensive legislative framework is needed to safeguard data ownership rights. The proposed “Personal Data Ownership Act” aims to establish clear guidelines for data control:

Title: Personal Data Ownership Act

Section 1: Short Title and Alternate Title

1. Short Title: This Act shall be known as the “Personal Data Ownership Act.”
2. Alternate Title: This Act may also be referred to as the “I Own Me” Act.

Section 2: Purpose The purpose of this act is to return ownership of data collected about a person to the person who’s data is being collected.

Section 3: Definitions

1. Personal Data: Any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, including but not limited to biometrics, physical location history, internet browsing history, shopping history, Personally Identifiable Information (P.I.I.) as defined in other statutes, associations with other persons, video and audio recordings, and other biometric and DNA information. Collecting data from a device, that can be associated to a data subject, is the same as collecting data from a person (ie: personal data).
2. Data Collector: Any entity, public or private, that collects, processes, or stores Personal Data.
3. Data Subject: An individual whose Personal Data is collected, processed, or stored by a Data Collector.
4. Electronic Device: Any electronic device that can be used for the collection of data on an individual, including but not limited to computers, smartphones, tablets, wearables, and IoT (Internet of Things) devices.

Section 4: Personal Data Ownership

1. Ownership Rights: Every individual shall have personal ownership of all Personal Data collected about them, regardless of the nature of their relationship with the Data Collector. Ownership rights include:
   • History of location.
   • History of search activity.
   • History of clicks, actions, motions, or scrolls, or any other device measurements.
   • Personally Identifiable Information (P.I.I.) as defined in other statutes.
   • Video and audio recording information.
   • Other biometric and DNA information.
2. Control Rights: Data Subjects shall have the authority to review, edit, or remove their Personal Data, in whole or in part, at any time.

Section 5: Right to Review and Edit

1. Access to Data: Data Collectors must provide Data Subjects with access to all Personal Data collected about them upon request.
2. Correction of Data: Data Subjects shall have the right to demand correction of inaccurate or incomplete Personal Data.
3. Deletion of Data: Data Subjects shall have the right to demand the deletion of their Personal Data, in whole or in part, except as provided in Section 6.
4. Non-Retaliation: A Data Collector, or a company that contracts with a Data Collector, may not cancel a person’s membership or ability to use a service due to a person requesting that their information be removed.

Section 6: Data Collection and Usage

1. Transparency: Data Collectors must inform Data Subjects about the collection and use of their Personal Data, including the purposes for which it is collected.
2. Consent: Data Collectors must obtain explicit consent from Data Subjects before collecting or processing their Personal Data.
3. Parental Consent: No data may be obtained about a person under the age of 13 without parental consent.

Section 7: Exceptions

1. Device Data Collection: This act does not apply to a device that does not store Personal Data for more than 24 hours or transmit that information to another device for storage.
2. Governmental Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by government entities for official purposes.
3. Medical Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by medical entities for the purposes of diagnosis, treatment, or healthcare management. This Act does not apply to individuals who are under the medical supervision of another.
4. Employment Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by employers for employment-related purposes.
5. Law Enforcement Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by law enforcement agencies for the purposes of criminal investigation, incarceration, public safety, or national security.
6. Security of Persons or Property: This Act does not apply to surveillance (video and/or audio) of a person or property conducted to protect against theft, vandalism, or violence.
7. Public Spaces: This Act does not restrict the constitutional right to record (video or audio) individuals in public places where there is no expectation of privacy, as long as such recording complies with applicable laws regarding privacy and consent.
8. Journalistic Exemption: Journalists and media organizations shall be permitted to gather Personal Data on individuals for newsworthy stories that serve the public good, provided that such data collection is conducted in accordance with applicable laws and ethical standards for journalism.
9. Personal and Family Data: This Act does not apply to individuals who collect and store data or documents solely for themselves or their immediate family.
10. Ancestral Information: This Act does not apply to the retention of information related to ancestral or genealogical research.

Section 8: Enforcement and Penalties

1. Enforcement Authority: The designated regulatory authority shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this Act.
2. Penalties for Non-Compliance: Data Collectors found in violation of this Act shall be subject to penalties, including fines and corrective actions as determined by the regulatory authority. An individual may also sue the Data Collector in Civil Court. A plaintiff shall not be required to prove monetary damages to bring a case or have that case adjudicated.
3. Class A Misdemeanor: It shall be a Class A Misdemeanor for any person to collect or store data on an individual without their knowledge.
4. Corporate Responsibility: When the offender is a corporation, the highest officer of that corporation shall be held responsible for the actions of the corporation and subject to penalties as specified for individual offenders.
5. Defense Against Prosecution:
   • It shall be a defense against prosecution if a Data Subject has signed an authorization for the collection of data, provided the data to be collected is plainly spelled out as to what is specifically collected.
   • It shall also be a defense against prosecution if the information collected is public knowledge or readily available from public sources.

Section 9: Transfer or Selling of Data

1. Authorization Required: Data Collectors must seek explicit authorization from the Data Subject prior to transferring or selling their Personal Data to any third party.
2. Disclosure of Terms: Data Collectors must disclose the terms of the sale or transfer, including the nature of the data being transferred and the parties involved, to the Data Subject.
3. Right to Negotiate Compensation: The Data Subject shall have the right to negotiate compensation for the transfer or sale of their Personal Data.
4. Retention of Rights: All other rights of the Data Subject, including the right to review, edit, or remove their Personal Data, shall be retained after the transfer or sale.

Section 10: Effective Date This Act shall take effect six months after the date of enactment.

Section 11: Severability If any provision of this Act is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.

Section 12: Review and Amendment This Act shall be reviewed every five years from the date of enactment and may be amended as necessary to address emerging privacy concerns and technological advancements.

As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, reimagining personal property rights to include data is essential. By granting individuals control over their own data and the right to profit from it, we can create a more equitable and transparent digital landscape. The proposed “Personal Data Ownership Act” serves as a crucial step in this direction, aiming to establish clear and enforceable rights for data subjects, ensuring that personal data is treated with the respect and value it deserves.

References

1. Jurcys, P. (2019). Ownership of User-Held Data: Why Property Law is the Right Approach. Retrieved from Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.
2. Ritter, J., & Mayer, A. (n.d.). Regulating Data as Property: A New Construct for Moving Forward. Retrieved from Duke Law & Technology Review.
3. Global Perspectives on Digital Trade Governance. (2021). Data Ownership and Data Access Rights: Meaningful Tools for Promoting the European Digital Single Market? Retrieved from Cambridge University Press.
4. Grimmelmann, J., & Mulligan, C. (n.d.). Data Property. Retrieved from American University Law Review.
5. Käll, J. (2020). The Materiality of Data as Property. Retrieved from Harvard International Law Journal.
6. Leonard, P. (2020). Beyond Data Privacy: Data “Ownership” and Regulation of Data-Driven Business. Retrieved from American Bar Association.

By considering the proposals and discussions in these resources, we can work towards a legal framework that ensures data ownership rights for all.

In a stunning display of disregard for the principles they claim to uphold, five Texas Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have betrayed their constituents by voting in favor of a ‘stopgap’ spending bill that does nothing but kick the can down the road. The recent passage of the short-term funding extension, also known as the continuing resolution (CR), raises serious questions about the commitment of these representatives to responsible governance.

The CR, which passed with a narrow margin, is nothing short of a legislative cop-out. Instead of addressing the core issues and fulfilling their duty to pass the necessary spending bills for the fiscal year 2024, these Republicans chose the path of least resistance, allowing the government to limp along with temporary measures until March.

One must question the wisdom of this decision, especially when considering the bill’s implications. The CR, passed 314 to 108, extends funding deadlines to March 1 and March 8. It was pushed forward by House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, despite the reservations of House Republicans.

Congress has been passing CRs to avoid government shutdowns since the end of September, failing to pass 12 annual spending bills for the 2024 fiscal year. The stopgap bill was passed before funding would have been cut off for agencies like the Veterans Affairs Department and Transportation Department on Friday. The rest of the government, including the Defense and State Departments, had a deadline of February 2.

The $1.66 trillion piece of legislation will punt the fight over government spending into early March, after being signed into law by President Joe Biden. It’s worth noting that this was not a bipartisan effort to address fundamental budget issues; rather, it was a last-minute scramble to avert a government shutdown.

These Texas Republicans, including John Carter, Dan Crenshaw, Monica De La Cruz, Jake Ellzey, and the retiring Kay Granger, voted in favor of a bill that not only fails to provide stability and predictability for the nation’s finances, but gives away all leverage to accomplish conservative goals of stopping the flood of illegal aliens into the country. The CR perpetuates a cycle of short-term fixes, disregarding the need for comprehensive and responsible budgeting.

Among the five Texas Republicans who shamefully voted for this bill, all but one are facing primary challenges that deserve attention. Let’s shine a light on the individuals who failed to stand up for their constituents and opted for a temporary solution over principled governance. As we head into primary season, voters must carefully consider whether these representatives truly reflect their values and priorities. The choices made in Washington impact every Texan, and it’s time to hold these individuals accountable for their actions.

1. John Carter (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 31): With five opponents in his primary – William Abel, John Anderson, Abhiram Garapati, Mack Latimer, and Mike Williams – Carter’s support for the CR raises concerns about his commitment to conservative values. Voters must question whether he is the right representative to champion their interests.
2. Dan Crenshaw (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 2): The ‘One-eyed McCain’ is facing a challenge from Jameson Ellis. Crenshaw’s vote for the stopgap bill does not align with the principles he claims to defend. Ellis and the voters of District 2 deserve a representative who will fight for their interests, not one who takes the easy way out.
3. Monica De La Cruz (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 15): De La Cruz, who is running against Vangela Churchill, has demonstrated a lack of commitment to the constituents of District 15. Churchill and voters deserve a representative who will prioritize their needs over political expediency.
4. Jake Ellzey (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 6): Ellzey, facing challenges from James Buford and Clifford Wiley, has disappointed voters by supporting a temporary fix instead of advocating for a comprehensive solution. District 6 needs a representative who will tackle the tough issues head-on.
5. Kay Granger (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 12): As a lame duck representative retiring from Congress, Granger’s vote for the CR leaves a stain on her legacy. Voters should question the wisdom of her decision, especially considering her imminent departure.

This stopgap spending bill is not a solution; it’s the same, “lucy and the football” tactic that establishment Republicans have been playing on the People for a long time. Forever promising to take action, then at the last minute pulling the ball away. The fact that these Texas Republicans chose to align themselves with a bill that fails to address the fundamental issues of the Republican party is a betrayal of the trust placed in them by their constituents… and their constituents have had enough.

As we head into primary season, voters must carefully consider whether these representatives truly reflect their values and priorities. The choices made in Washington impact every Texan, and it’s time to hold these individuals accountable for their actions.

The Texas Liberty Journal stands firmly against such political maneuvering at the expense of responsible governance. It is our hope that voters in these districts will make their voices heard in the upcoming primaries, demanding representatives who will genuinely advocate for their interests, not just when it’s convenient.