Corporations are now your brother and sister
by Divorced one like Bush
If you haven’t heard, the SCOTUS just ruled 5/4 that corporations are now your brother and sister under the constitution.
Hey brother, can you spare a dime?
To bad corporations didn’t have to fight in the Revolution and actually bleed to get such rights.
More seriously, the court ruled that free speech is protected not based on the ability to bleed human genetic material. An artificial entity is just as protected. What happens now as artificial intelligence and robots become more capable. All those programed rules to protect us from something going wrong can now be considered a violation of the electronic entities free speech.
I think I will become a corporation. That way I can have two votes.
Eh, all we need to do to reverse this is charge a corporation with murder and seek the death penalty.
The dissenting opinion notes that the majority rules on questions not in front of them: the plaintiff didn’t ask for this ruling and neither party argued the facts upon which this ruling was made. In other words, the majority made up facts and ruled on something else than what this case was about.
Talk about whole cloth!
The irony is that there is at least a conceptual legal framework for a “death penalty” for corporations (charter revocation), but it is pretty much never ever used. No one watches the corporations. The corporations tell us who to vote for, they give us the only commentators that you’ll ever see on television or hear on the radio who tell us what to think about the people who are telling us who to vote for that aren’t controlled by the corporations, and they write the laws down on K street.
We’re FUCKED.
Sadly the concept of “corporate personhood” has existed since 1886, when the Supreme Court declared that the 14th amendment and the rest of the constitutional protections applied to Corporations.
You’re beginning to understand the power of the python.
A foreign corporation incorporates a subsidiary in the U.S. and now is a full political actor when it comes to campaign donations?
Gosh what could go wrong when Russian ganster billionaires, various M.E. Sovereign Wealth Funds, Carlos Slim of Mexico and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela/CitGo just start funding their own candidates?
If Wells Fargo is a natural born citizen can it run for President?
Of course this allows vast resources to be used to spread lies and other plutopropaganda. With impunity. I have to laugh since I suppose some here thought I was “extreme’ in my denunciations of the plutocracy and its stranglehold over the US economy and politics. This simply closes the door on any attempt to get out of the python’s grasp. Poor stupid Americans. They allow these thing to be done to them because they haven’t the guts or brains to rebel. Perpetual serfs by their own consent.
warprofiteers=warmongers
What does this do to the 501c3 corp that was not allowed to be politically active. The exchange for being tax free was no political activism.
The same question should be relevant for Churches. Cities and towns as well.
This is a really nasty barrel of snakes, and it’s barrels all the way down.
In law, there is a little concept that the reverse of the ruling has to also make sense. So…if a corp is like me, the reverse would say I am as a corp.
Can I now declare my home in what ever state best serves my needs while I make home in the one that feels most comfortable?
Can I declare my income earned here as income earned from over seas if I work for a multinational?
Regarding tax treament, there is a major inequality between the citizen human and the citizen corp. Is this now an issue of unequal treatment?
I think at AB we should start a list of all sorts of things that this ruling now brings into question regarding the money flow issue related to daily economic activity.
One significant purpose of forming a corporation is to limit the liability of the stakeholders and decision makers of that corporation. If a corporation has the rights of an individual, and the individual stakeholders and decision makers of that corporation are shielded from the liabilities that may accrue from that corporation’s actions, is there anyone responsible for anything that the corporation may be found to have been responsible for? Worse yet, if the corporation is formed as a shell having few if any finacial assets, what penalty can be applied to the corporation, its stakeholders or its decision makers in the event that the corporation is shown to have been responsible for criminal activity? Who is it that said that “The law is an ass?” Did that person know our current quintet of judicial activits?
The only way this works is if you bring joint and several legal responsibility to shareholders, board members, and upper management. That will never happen. This is a huge huge upsetting of the apple cart. Democracy is already teetering on the rails and David Farragut, Keanu Reeves, and The Supreme Court are telling us that obviously the answer is to go faster — full ahead, damn the torpedoes.
The only way this works is if you bring joint and several legal responsibility to shareholders, board members, and upper management. That will never happen. This is a huge huge upsetting of the apple cart. Democracy is already teetering on the rails and David Farragut, Keanu Reeves, and The Supreme Court are telling us that obviously the answer is to go faster — full ahead, damn the torpedoes.
Only, Keanu and David had skin in the game.
The Keynesian concept of investors relying on workers as consumers seems to me the most important lesson of the Great Depression. In 1929, before the crash, 71% of the population was living in poverty. Workers could not afford the products they produced; and so, beginning in 1921, as wages and consumption went down, poverty went up. This seems a very simple concept, but we still find the political importance of this inter-dependency hard to keep sight of.
However, the demographic dividend of global economics dictates that labor values must remain stagnant in the developed economies. It could be, and often is, argued that wealth redistribution could close the gap between the rich and the poor although without the aforementioned inter-dependence the government lacks the necessary moral mandate to support collective bargaining in any significant way. The plain truth is that labor values in the wealthy nations will come under increasing pressure as the developing nations expand their labor forces, a sad but inescapable dynamic. The Keynesian inter-dependency though may turn out to be as important politically, as it once was economically.
Politically, the Keynesian inter-dependency acted as a counterweight that maintained a balance of power between the working-class and the investment-class. But as suggested above, this balance only lasts so long as the government supports the collective bargaining efforts of Labor. But in a democracy the government’s moral mandate is to support the best interests of the majority. So as the investment-class increased numerically, not in wealth, but in terms of votes and influence, the government systematically accommodated the constituency. Naturally, other factors such as splits in the working-class and political party maneuvers must be factored in. But, what is commonly misconstrued as a dysfunctional democratic system is instead systemically functional to a degree that brings machines to mind. And that functionality is currently being expressed through an imbalance of power that is defended by its own democratic existence. It is therefore a mistake not to recognize that corporations are the embodiment of investors. And that investors are now the largest single voting bloc with alligned economic interests.
A democratic tyranny is far more powerful than an oligarchy.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We The People
“Shed a tear for our democracy.
Today, in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.
In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.
The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their front groups attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial corporate interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.
Because today’s decision is made on First Amendment constitutional grounds, the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in the states and localities, including in state judicial elections.
In one sense, today’s decision was a long time in coming. Over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the First Amendment protections that it has afforded for-profit corporations.
But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from Supreme Court tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with speech in the political context, the court has long upheld regulations on corporate spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United decision is also an astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought the issue of corporations’ purported right to spend money to influence election outcomes was at stake in this case until the Supreme Court so decreed. The case had been argued in lower courts, and was originally argued before the Supreme Court, on narrow grounds related to application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth. There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment.
We, the People cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We, the People cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy.”
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3031
[Continued]
We The People Of The United States
“Shed a tear for our democracy.
Today, in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.
In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.
The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their front groups attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial corporate interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.
Because today’s decision is made on First Amendment constitutional grounds, the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in the states and localities, including in state judicial elections.
In one sense, today’s decision was a long time in coming. Over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the First Amendment protections that it has afforded for-profit corporations.
But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from Supreme Court tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with speech in the political context, the court has long upheld regulations on corporate spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United decision is also an astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought the issue of corporations’ purported right to spend money to influence election outcomes was at stake in this case until the Supreme Court so decreed. The case had been argued in lower courts, and was originally argued before the Supreme Court, on narrow grounds related to application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth. There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment.
We, the People cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We, the People cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy.”
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3031
[Continued]
We The People Of The United States
“Public Citizen is going to do everything we can to mitigate the damage from today’s decision, and to overturn this misguided ruling.
First, we must have public financing of elections. Public financing will give independent candidates a base from which they may be able to compete against candidates benefiting from corporate expenditures. We will intensify our efforts to win rapid passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide congressional candidates with an alternative to corporate-funded campaigns before fundraising for the 2010 election is in full swing. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.) and Rep. John Larson (D.-Conn.), the bill would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions in amounts of more than $100. The proposal has broad support, including more than 110 co-sponsors in the House.
In the wake of the court’s decision, it is also essential that the presidential public financing system be made viable again. Cities and states will also need to enact public financing of elections.
Second, we will urge Congress to ensure that corporate CEOs do not use corporate funds for political purposes, against the wishes of shareholders. We will support legislation requiring an absolute majority of shares to be voted in favor, before any corporate political expenditure is permitted.
These mitigating measures will not be enough to offset today’s decision, however. The decision itself must be overturned.
Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. We do not lightly call for a constitutional amendment. But today’s decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.
We are formulating language for possible amendments, asking members of the public to sign a petition to affirm their support for the idea of constitutional change, and planning to convene leading thinkers in the areas of constitutional law and corporate accountability to begin a series of in-depth conversations about winning a constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court has lost its way today. Democracy is rule of the people – real, live humans, not artificial entity corporations. Now it’s time for the people to reassert their rights.”
###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit http://www.citizen.org.
Source:
Shed a Tear for Democracy: Supreme Court’s Citizens United Will Unleash Flood of Corporate Money in Elections; Public Citizen Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Decision
Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
January 21, 2009
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3031
.
We The People Of The United States
“Shed a tear for our democracy.
Today, in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.
In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.
The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their front groups attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial corporate interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.
Because today’s decision is made on First Amendment constitutional grounds, the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in the states and localities, including in state judicial elections.
In one sense, today’s decision was a long time in coming. Over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the First Amendment protections that it has afforded for-profit corporations.
But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from Supreme Court tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with speech in the political context, the court has long upheld regulations on corporate spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United decision is also an astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought the issue of corporations’ purported right to spend money to influence election outcomes was at stake in this case until the Supreme Court so decreed. The case had been argued in lower courts, and was originally argued before the Supreme Court, on narrow grounds related to application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth. There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment.
We, the People cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We, the People cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy.”
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3031
[Continued]
We The People Of The United States
“Public Citizen is going to do everything we can to mitigate the damage from today’s decision, and to overturn this misguided ruling.
First, we must have public financing of elections. Public financing will give independent candidates a base from which they may be able to compete against candidates benefiting from corporate expenditures. We will intensify our efforts to win rapid passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide congressional candidates with an alternative to corporate-funded campaigns before fundraising for the 2010 election is in full swing. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.) and Rep. John Larson (D.-Conn.), the bill would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions in amounts of more than $100. The proposal has broad support, including more than 110 co-sponsors in the House.
In the wake of the court’s decision, it is also essential that the presidential public financing system be made viable again. Cities and states will also need to enact public financing of elections.
Second, we will urge Congress to ensure that corporate CEOs do not use corporate funds for political purposes, against the wishes of shareholders. We will support legislation requiring an absolute majority of shares to be voted in favor, before any corporate political expenditure is permitted.
These mitigating measures will not be enough to offset today’s decision, however. The decision itself must be overturned.
Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. We do not lightly call for a constitutional amendment. But today’s decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.
We are formulating language for possible amendments, asking members of the public to sign a petition to affirm their support for the idea of constitutional change, and planning to convene leading thinkers in the areas of constitutional law and corporate accountability to begin a series of in-depth conversations about winning a constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court has lost its way today. Democracy is rule of the people – real, live humans, not artificial entity corporations. Now it’s time for the people to reassert their rights.”
###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit http://www.citizen.org.
Source:
Shed a Tear for Democracy: Supreme Court’s Citizens United Will Unleash Flood of Corporate Money in Elections; Public Citizen Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Decision
Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
January 21, 2009
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3031
.
Yup, just amazing how they could ignor that We the People. There is no rational way to reconcile what they ruled today with this first line which leads to the core premis: One voice, one vote.
Public financing of elections in the context of corporations able to spend unlimited amounts of money on either issue or advocacy ads is worthless. Who cares what the campaign can spend? The campaign is slim pickins.
And the fear-mongering begins. Margery, you should be careful what you say and who you say it to. Your bigotry towards Muslims is definitely not protected under the 1st Amendment.
I don’t think churches quaify since they have consciencly traded tax deductability for political neutrality. They gave away their ability to be political for something they value more.
OT: Air America ceased airing new programs Thursday afternoon. The end.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9628724
The Founding Fathers were an educated bunch, successful, well-off businessmen who knew how to use their mother tongue. I believe, if they had wanted to extend essential liberties to corporations, they could easily have said so.
I went through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights tonight. I found the following mentions:
People: 17
Human: 1
Person 18
Persons 10
Corporation: 0
Zero mention of corporations. What constitution are our justices reading, anyway?
Rep Grayson of FL gave an eloquent talk against this ruling on MSNBC tonight. I don’t live in FL but I sent his re-election campaign $50 anyway. You can sign his petition at:
http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4&tag=redirect
Wow,
What a disgrace and a s(*#%($ on the founding fathers giving us a Constitution. Their fight againt Corporations……yes just as much as the founders attempted with all the muster and intellect they could—-by taking on the Lords of Currency…[Yes, Frankin went to Parliament about the issue] they even had more to say about the destruction and control wrecked upon them by the Crowns Coporate Chartered East India Company and Hudson Bay Company….
the machinery of this place……decomposed to the core….. since the civil war, which is where the corporation derived its “person” from the so called ratified 14th……
R.I.P.
Caitin0,
Corporations are an organizing vehicle directed by people. So the Supreme Court got it right.