KRC members and those on the mailing list will recall that KRC actively opposed Senate Bill 120 (Constitutional Amendment #2) as initially written in the Senate and House. Key members of the jurisdictional House Committee that received the senate bill shared KRC's particular concern with two provisions of the state constitution that were proposed for repeal - Section 195, prohibiting corporate infringement on individual rights, and Section 205, providing for revocation of corporate charters for misdeeds.
KRC agreed to cease active opposition to the passage of the bill after those two provisions were removed. That, however, was the extent of KRC's concession to the bill, and in no manner constituted an agreement to remain "neutral" on the amendment. I apologize if Mr. Breeding interpreted my cessation of active opposition to the constitutional amendment bill during the session as more than that, and will be more clear in the future in that regard.
KRC provided our analysis on both Constitutional Amendments 1 and 2 as a service in response to requests from KRC members and supporters. KRC has indicated that it does not support Constitutional Amendment #2, but has not and will not engage in active efforts to oppose passage of the measure; nor has KRC indicated how anyone should vote on the measures. KRC assumes that each individual will read all available information on those amendments from a range of sources, and will make their decision based on that information and as informed voters. Our function in this regard is to provide to the best of our ability, a clear-headed analysis in order to educate members and supporters concerning non-partisan ballot measures of this nature. To read the background documents produced by the coalition favoring Constitutional Amendment #2, explaining why it believes the amendment is beneficial, go to http://www.keepkyjobs.com/.
One technical correction to the KRC Analysis is needed. Under the section addressing what "will" happen if the amendment passes, KRC indicated that "If the amendment passes, corporations would become eligible to amass and hold real properties not related to their lawful corporate purposes, for an indefinite period of time." That sentence should have read "If the amendment passes, corporations would become eligible to amass and hold real properties not necessary for carrying on its legitimate business' for an indefinite period of time because of the removal of the five-year limitation.