posted September 23, 2009 09:54 AM         

It stems from a famous 1886 case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons" having the same rights as human beings based on the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect the rights of former slaves. But the Supreme Court made no such decision. If you look at the case in question, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, you see that the court itself never rules on personhood. A court reporter by the name of J.C. Bancroft Davis (a former railroad president) snuck that "ruling" into the books.

Yet it has been used as precedent ever since. Many politicians are already bought and paid for....corporate America seems to want an even bigger piece. This is amazingly important.

Currently private donations have a limit (scratches head) 2,500? yes here..www.fec.gov/info/contriblimits0910.pdf

Private limits would be subject too.

posted September 23, 2009 05:03 PM         

This week, the Supreme Court is deciding whether restrictions on corporate money in federal elections are really all that necessary ..

And you bring up another angle. Foreign interests.

The amounts of money required to get elected to dog catcher are obscene.
There are many things about the whole process that needs changing. But how? When you think of all the ways those millions could be spent.
Nature of the beast. But corporate interest not just getting a sympathetic ear...they often pay for much more than that.

posted January 21, 2010 09:18 PM         

"The ruling by a sharply divided court lifted restrictions on what corporations and labor organizations may invest to sway voters in federal elections, meaning both groups now have free rein to pour money in support of races for Senate and the House of Representatives in all 50 states."

The ruling covers the money corporations and unions may spend from their own profits on independent ads and other advocacy efforts on behalf of candidates or issues. It does not change restrictions on direct contributions to candidates for federal office, which remain prohibited under federal law, but are allowed in New Jersey state races.

posted January 22, 2010 04:46 PM         

does anyone get the feeling that EVERYTHING is ass-backwards in the world today? newspeak is definitely here, and the fear of "leftists" and socialism translate in turning the running of the country over to the multinationals OFFICIALLY. charming.

any ideas what we can do to divert the seemingly inevitable fascist regime?

posted January 23, 2010 01:34 PM         

"FOR FIVE years, I have signed every petition that comes into my e-mail, have written and called legislators on every occasion demanded, have joined marches and sent donations I couldn’t afford — sadly, with effectively zero results. For five years, despite massive marches, on-line campaigns, call and write-in campaigns, despite revelations of treasonous lies, corruption, and crime in the highest places, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

We are still murdering wholesale in Iraq, we are still holding prisoners without due process, our civil rights have been unilaterally nullified, we still have the most ineffective and expensive health care system in the world, poverty continues to increase, nothing is being done to stop the juggernaut of global warming — the list could go on and on. As if that were not bad enough, any hope of change through the ballot box is nullified by rampant, unchecked fraud in both electronic voting systems and the election process itself.

The reason we have no impact, no matter how large and growing a majority we are, is that the federal government in its entirety is controlled not by the electoral process but by and for corporate money. Furthering this usurpation is corporate control of the media, thereby literally manufacturing both our consent to be governed and the electoral process itself.

The prospects of removing a pathological tyrant and his corporate masters from government through any political process are woefully dim. The corporations that control the throne are stronger than ever, and the damage continues to metastasize. It is past time to take more drastic action than marches and campaigns.

The most drastic action we can take is non-violent and effective, and requires no one to stick their neck out, sign anything, or donate money. All it requires is personal self-restraint. What I’m suggesting is nothing short of a revolution, the equivalent of the Boston Tea Party on a personal scale. It is simply this: stop spending money. I do not mean go hungry or homeless. I mean stop spending money on anything you don’t actually need.

For each person, this will mean something different. For some it may be fast food or junk food or unnecessary restaurant meals. For others it might mean unnecessary clothing, or jewelry, or vacation travel, or new electronic toys or a second car. If two million people examined their spending habits and eliminated all but absolute essentials, and were committed to continuing their frugality for, say, at least six months, the effects would be extremely interesting.

One of the notable elements of this proposal is that the most unnecessary items we buy are those advertised on television. If sales should drop for those items, advertising revenue also drops (after the first mad frenzy to boost sales by increased advertising), and corporate control of the media is thereby weakened. At the same time, we, as individuals, discover not only that we didn’t need those things, we are actually better off without them and stronger for it.

If, practically overnight, say two million people stopped drinking Coke or going to McDonalds or buying unnecessary software, tv screens, cell phones, etc. or driving except for necessity, some very large companies would feel the effects in their pocketbooks, and even more impact would occur on banks and credit card companies that profit by encouraging people to buy more than they need or can afford. As the movement persists and grows, these corporations would have less money to buy politicians and legislation, and government might have to resort to the unthinkable recourse of representing the people.

There is ample precedent for this in our own history. In a single year between 1768 and 1769, for example, imports from Britain to the American colonies fell nearly 50% when colonists simply refused to buy them, putting a number of English companies in bankruptcy. The colonists not only survived this self-imposed hardship but prevailed in a war of independence that created this country and its constitutional form of government.

As with the colonists, this proposal puts action for political reform on a down and dirty individual level — literally putting your money where your mouth is. How much unnecessary stuff are you willing to go without in order to regain both democratic government and a free media?

By not buying non-necessities, individuals can avoid or pay off debt, and use continued savings to exercise more choice in purchase of necessities, thereby having even more impact on the market. For example, they might choose to pay a little more to buy from independents rather than from Walmart or other exploitive superstores, or to buy organic food, a hybrid vehicle, solar panels, or items made only in U.S. union shops, or whatever cause means most to them.

The astonishing thing about this is that by refusing to buy what we truly don’t need, we not only starve out corporate control of government, but corporate control of our personal lives. Through advertising and control of the media, corporations tell us what to want, what to buy, what to think, what to wear, what to look like, what we should be, what to love, what to hate, how to live, how to define ourselves, how to relate to each other — not for our own good, but solely and exclusively to turn a profit at our expense. And we pay them to do this by buying their products!

President Bush, the corporate puppet, spoke no truer words than his exhortation to go shopping as a show of patriotism after 9/11 — shamelessly redefining patriotism to mean support of corporations that own our government and our lives.

Is it unpatriotic to stop buying what we don’t need? Are we putting fellow Americans out of work? Think about it, please. Our purchasing power is the last power remaining to us. By not buying unnecessary products, we can force industry to start producing what we do need — uncontaminated foods, super-efficient transportation, clean, fossil-free energy (other countries are creating jobs producing solar panels, wind generators, energy-efficient trains, etc.).

Can this happen? Too right it can. It’s happened before. Within months of Pearl Harbor, the entire U.S. industrial complex, from auto factories to toy makers to corset manufacturers, was retooled and restructured to produce war machinery. For more than three years, people did without butter, new cars, gasoline, etc., to support a desperate cause.

Our cause today is no less desperate and urgent than World War II was: to restore the democratic government and way of life that war was fought to preserve. No government policies, no legislators beholden to corporate money, are going to do this for us, it is up to us to do it ourselves. Surely we can do without the Victoria’s Secret bra or new flat screen tv or hot SUV to regain control of what was once our own government.

This revolution, like the one that created our democracy, must begin at home, literally. It takes only this: turn off the tv, look around you, talk to your kids and partners, and ask each other what you really need today. Just today. And commit to purchasing today only those things you need. Then do it again tomorrow. Try it. You might find it exhilarating to have such power!"

posted January 23, 2010 11:39 PM         

This is bad. This is so so bad. I don't now what to say, it's so bad. The very idea that a corporation is considered a person, is entitled to the rights of a citizen - sometimes more! - absolutely sickens me. It's demonic.

quote:

---

in a way they are just trying to legalize something that is already going on. but legalize it and that is the end to any semblance of democracy, period.

---

yes

Clearly the chess pieces are being moved into position. Why does no one see this??

“As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”
Pres. Abraham Lincoln – November 21, 1864

posted January 24, 2010 05:07 AM         

Supreme Court appointments might be more important than who is president, at least to me. Presidents have had their choices backfire. If this ruling is unfettered, the limitations that some are proposing not swiftly put into place, be prepared for it to get really bad.

It's funny how 'underreported' this is. My ISP is talking about what Jon Stewart said about the Olberman rant. Not what the ruling said.
in this instance I agree with Howard Fineman, you cannot be over the top about this.
This smells like Rome.

Ever the brightest lightbulb on the tanning bed, John A. Boehner said this is a victory for free speech.

MA KETTLE's piece does show where our power currently lies. Buying power...Much like the move your money entreaty by some.

The Unions and their role are being downplayed as well. Everything is assbackwards. we are regressing

posted January 24, 2010 01:55 PM         

but if everyone were to avoid corporate outlets and go ONLY to local small businesses, hell, we might even get some craftsmen back in our lives, like shoemakers, grocers, butchers, etc...

and then there would still be jobs for the people the corps can't afford anymore...whic is my big objection to jwhops plan to just pull our heads in and sit it out...too many layoffs would be the result.

posted January 29, 2010 12:01 AM         

The recent decision upholds the 1st Amendment free speech rights of Americans including American corporations.

McCain/Feingold was an obvious attempt to circumvent the 1st Amendment rights of Americans and the Court struck it down...as it should have.

posted January 29, 2010 01:12 AM         

why should a corporation have the same rights as a person, jwhop? please tell me that.