@Setanta,
True enough.
They've also decided that eminent domain can be invoked to seize private property for alternative private use. It's, obviously the law as it now stands but I don't have to agree it should be. I'm sure you understand this and there may very well be decisions in effect that you disagree with despite your respect for them as the law of the land.
Your point though raises further question as to the need and intent of this proposed amendment.
As you no doubt are aware, the issue of Corporate personhood existed well before Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the rights that have been afforded to corporations through prior decisions are not limited to the area of campaign contribution.
Clearly the proposed wording of the amendment is intended to restrict corporations from making any contributions (hard or soft) to political campaigns. The ostensible reason is to not allow corporations to “buy and control our government.” Cenk Uygur would be hard pressed to show how the contractual rights afforded to corporations under Dartmouth College v. Woodward are being used to buy and control the government, but his 28th Amendment would nevertheless do away with them.
As Joe Nation commented, the proposed wording of the amendment is terrible and it’s pretty obvious that if this effort ever moves forward it will need to be rewritten, but I suspect that Uygur’s position (if not also that of CWS) would be that it is essential that corporations be granted no rights under the US Constitution and therefore any rights, unrelated to campaign finance, which may still be in order for corporations should be provided on a state by state basis.
I’m not as sanguine as edgar that Uygur and CWS are as concerned with Unions buying and controlling our government as they are about corporations, and once again the proposed wording doesn’t make their intent clear, but then I don’t think it can be said that Uygur speaks for CWS or that CWS even has a coherent position on this topic, and so we are back to wondering if there is really any point in discussing the positions and goals of #Occupiers (as Art likes to call them).