Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

**Jimaz** · May-01-10, 06:34 PM

From AlterNet: 8 Words That Could Save Our Country, by David Morris

A rogue Supreme Court seems hellbent on establishing a corporate oligarchy. Congress canâ€™t stop it. Every time Congress or state legislatures tries to curb the power of billionaires or mega corporations the Court slaps them down.

Citizens United v. FEC, the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections is only the most recent step in this process. There will be more. But the shocking decision may be sufficient to galvanize a political movement that can change the rules and ensure our democracy.

We can save our country by adding eight words to the fundamental law of the land, the US Constitution. "Corporations are not persons." "Money is not speech."

Such a development is not without precedent....

... A recent Quinnipiac poll reveals a whopping 79 percent public disapproval of the Courtâ€™s ruling. A Washington Post-ABC News poll puts the figure even higher at 81 percent. And as Dan Eggen of the Post writes, "The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats [[85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans [[76 percent) and independents [[81 percent)."...

People may not know exactly what Goldman Sachs is, but they know it is not a person. A person doesnâ€™t have unlimited life or limited liability. A person is responsible for her decisions. If she makes a decision that kills or maims people she will go to jail. If a CEO makes such a decision she, at worst, receives a golden parachute....

Too much common sense? Or just nutty enough to work?

Retroit · May-01-10, 07:08 PM

How about if we pass a law that says that money can not be donated to candidates, but only to elections? All money donated will be split evenly into two pots. Money in the first pot will be distributed equally to all candidates for the primary. The money in the second pot will be distributed equally to the top two vote-getters in the primary for use in the general election.

**Jimaz** · May-01-10, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

How about if we pass a law that says that money can not be donated to candidates, but only to elections? All money donated will be split evenly into two pots. Money in the first pot will be distributed equally to all candidates for the primary. The money in the second pot will be distributed equally to the top two vote-getters in the primary for use in the general election.

Interesting proposal but I think it strays a bit from the thread title.

I think the problem here is that everyone understands the disproportionate lobbying power of corporations over that of individuals. One power that corporations do not hold however is the power to vote. What if that one power could be used to level the overall playing field? Intriguing.

**Jimaz** · May-01-10, 07:30 PM

Related: Obama calls for legislation to restrict lobbyist influence on elections

US President Barack Obama called on Congress on Saturday to pass reforms limiting the influence of special interest groups on US elections, saying the integrity of US democracy needed to be protected.

"What we are facing is no less than a potential corporate takeover of our elections," Obama said in his weekly radio address. "And what is at stake is no less than the integrity of our democracy."

The appeal came after a recent US Supreme Court ruling that gave corporations, lobbyists, other special interest groups -- foreign and domestic -- the power to spend unlimited money to influence the outcome of US elections.

The ruling meant that corporations would be allowed to run political television advertisements ahead of national and local elections without telling voters who was paying for them, said Obama.

Congress therefore needed to adopt reforms under which campaign committees would have to reveal who was funding them, and their leaders or financiers would have to claim responsibility for their ads, the president argued.

Also, the reforms will restrict foreign corporations and foreign nationals from spending money in American elections, the president said.

"This shouldn't be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue," he argued.

"This is an issue that goes to whether or not we will have a government that works for ordinary Americans - a government of, by, and for the people...."

**Jimaz** · May-01-10, 08:09 PM

If the power of the vote alone is insufficient to balance the power of corporate lobbyists, there are other heavy hammers in the tool chest available, such as the power to revoke corporate charters:

Taking Care of Business, Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation

**oladub** · May-01-10, 08:51 PM

Honest politicians can't be bought. That is why someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul do not get big bucks from Wall Street. Deep pocketed contributors soon learn that their contributions to these sorts do not get them what they want. Fortunately, for all the rest of the politicians, there are innumerable ways of accepting bribes. Hire the brother in law; check. A college scholarship for the niece or mistress; check. A biography distributed to every union member or some lucrative retirement speech opportunities; check. How about a great deal buying or selling real estate? And on and on. I had an MSU poly sci instructor who used to be a State legislator tell us about the prostitutes assemblymen were provided at the Jack Tar Hotel in Lansing. Ultimaltely, it is whether the elected representative is honest that prevents them from being swayed by lobbyists; not the form of the bribe. If you are offered a great deal on a house or ranch or your wife makes partner at a law firm the day after one becomes governor or maybe she gets a $300,000 a year hospital administrator job, how is that less of a bribe than accepting campaign contributions?

Corporations are obviously not persons. That is just a judicial ruling. Maybe that ruling should be revisited. However individuals are 'persons' and the 1st Amendment does not allow any abridgement of free speech on individuals. Some individuals might want to use their free speech to promote the interest of a corporation, union, religion, the flat earth society, a position on abortion, or anything else. It would be easy enough to say that corporations and unions could not buy media space but how can a group of individuals be prevented from writing an add, with their own money, saying why they think a given politician will hurt their business and cost jobs? And why should they be prevented from doing so? What about when the interests of GM line up with the interests of the UAW on a matter like the importation of Chinese cars? If I understand the sentiment here, GM, as a corporation, would not be able to voice it's own interests. Maybe unions could still lobby to prevent a million inexpensive Chinese imports from wrecking the domestic auto industry but GM's money would be absent from the fight. Of course the unions should have considered the consequences of taking away GM's voice but by then it might be too late.

I am not a fan of Alan Keyes but he came up with an interesting proposal.

Avoid incumbency protection: no union or corporate donors

Campaign finance reform typically turns out to be incumbency protection. Professional politicians are unlikely to devise a system that isnâ€™t in their own interest. We need to devise instead a system for financing our political contests in the interest of our freedom. The premises that should govern such a system are simple.
The first principle is that there will be no â€œdollarâ€ vote without a ballot vote. Only people who can walk into the voting booth and cast a vote for a candidate should be able to make a contribution to his campaign. This means no corporate contributions, and no union contributions, except from unions truly acting on the authority of members freely associating and intending to make a contribution.
The second principle is that when anyone casts a â€œdollarâ€ vote, it should be publicized immediately. The whole world should know who is giving how much, and to whom, so that the voters can enforce the result. Source: Campaign website, www.alankeyes.com, â€œIssuesâ€ Oct 1, 2007

**mjs** · May-02-10, 09:05 AM

Good idea, but the ruling bans Congress from doing it. The Court says that corporations have a Consitutional right to publicly show their support for certain politicians and policies. However, the Courts has historically given Congress enormous powers under the tax and spend clause.

So, Congress can tax corporate donations at 90% and make it immune to other deductions. Exxon could still show their elation that elected officials provided much needed subsidies that allowed them to make $6.3 billion in tax-exempt quarterly profits. The claim is that the money isn't buying influence, but only voicing approval, so the campaign donations will still have the same desired effect.

The extra $3.1 billion the treasury would have gotten last year could have really helped our cash strapped government out. Since the corporations swear up and down that they're only doing their civic duty by helping politicians get the good word out, they'll be honored to pay the new tax. The health industry alone seemed to have over half a billion to give away to politicians without expecting anything in return.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/inc...2008&var2=2009

**maxx** · May-02-10, 09:35 AM

oladub:It would be easy enough to say that corporations and unions could not buy media space but how can a group of individuals be prevented from writing an add, with their own money, saying why they think a given politician will hurt their business and cost jobs? And why should they be prevented from doing so?

maxx: During an election right now, if you have enough money you can say whatever you want to about a candidate. No candidate is going to sue you for libel because they would be too busy trying to win the election and the court system is too slow and costly. The best anyone can do is to counter any and all attacks, but that takes money. So instead of being debates about issues, our elections are wars of attrition.
oladub: Honest politicians can't be bought. That is why someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul do not get big bucks from Wall Street.

maxx: Those two Congress people happen to be in good positions where they have strong, loyal, and poliitically active constituents. The Levin brothers are other examples.

This next election is another crucial one because it determines who will redistrict the state. But I think a lot of people are not aware of this so they may not vote. And redistricting can be challenged by the other party, but again it costs money.

**rb336** · May-03-10, 01:44 PM

I agree with Keyes. I'm not sure if he meant this, but no one registered in FLA should be able to give to campaigns for local offices other than where they vote. Starve the damn politicians of enough money so they have to actually walk the districts in which they intend to run

**Sstashmoo** · May-03-10, 02:19 PM

Quote: "A person is responsible for her decisions. If she makes a decision that kills or maims people she will go to jail. If a CEO makes such a decision she, at worst, receives a golden parachute...."

Why the sexism?

This sounds like a great plan, but it's wishful thinking that mere people will circumnavigate powerful lobbies with simple legislation. Just a byproduct and symptom of a much larger problem.

**Jimaz** · May-03-10, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "A person is responsible for her decisions. If she makes a decision that kills or maims people she will go to jail. If a CEO makes such a decision she, at worst, receives a golden parachute...."

Why the sexism?

You'd have to ask the author. Distracting, isn't it? "Their" and "they" would be less sexist. But that language isn't the topic here.

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

This sounds like a great plan, but it's wishful thinking that mere people will circumnavigate powerful lobbies with simple legislation.

I can appreciate the cynicism. I don't know if a constitutional amendment would qualify as "simple legislation." Although the proposed language [["Corporations are not persons." "Money is not speech.") is certainly, to the author's credit, simple. Perhaps that simplicity accounts for the agreement in the poll numbers cited. It's those poll numbers that suggest it may be not so much wishful thinking as it is a true possibility. I'd like to see any polls that show disagreement on this subject. It's almost to good to be true that Americans would agree on anything in the current political climate.

Granted, a constitutional amendment is no easy task nor should it be. It would require the building momentum of a movement. Yet the simple, widespread, common sense, true-on-its-face appeal of "Corporations are not persons." and "Money is not speech." could just possibly provide that momentum. Imagine that!

**Big Dog** · May-03-10, 08:19 PM

I think we can thank Bush and his appointees, for this ruling being law.

**Sstashmoo** · May-04-10, 09:26 AM

Quote: "I don't know if a constitutional amendment would qualify as "simple legislation.""

The priority shown our governing document as of late, appears to bear this out.

**Papasito** · May-04-10, 12:29 PM

Every time Congress or state legislatures tries to curb the power of billionaires or mega corporations the Court slaps them down.

as long as it doesnt pertain to George Soros, right?

**maxx** · May-09-10, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

as long as it doesnt pertain to George Soros, right?

George Soros, the right's rich whippingboy. What about Richard Melon Scaife, the money behind Clinton's impeachment? Or Boone Pickens, the money behind the swiftboating of Kerry?

**Jimaz** · May-10-10, 06:56 PM

Attachment 6032
FreeSpeechforPeople.org kickoff video

Congresswoman Donna Edwards and constitutional law professor Jamie Raskin speak out against the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and call for a mass movement of people to support a constitutional amendment. Visit FreeSpeechforPeople.org to learn more and get involved!

FreeSpeechforPeople.org

**Jimaz** · May-23-10, 06:39 PM

Exclusive Audio: Brothers embark on walk across America to fight corporate personhood

Two brothers in their late sixties are setting out on a journey they hope will "restore democracy to America." Starting out from San Francisco, Robin and Laird Monahan have begun a 3000-mile hike that will take them across ten states to Washington, DC.

Along the way, the Monahans hope to rally opposition to the controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC. As the Times-Standard pointed out in a short piece on the Monahan brothers, the decision overturned sections of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, and ruled that corporations are entitled to some of the same rights as people....

"The Citizens United decision was just a hammer blow to me," Laird Monahan told RAW STORY. "Frankly, I was despondent for a couple of days. I just thought the end of my country had come to pass."

After long talks with his wife, Laird was only growing angrier. "I just said, I gotta do something. I gotta do something physical, I gotta make a physical sacrifice to restore democracy to America."...

"Let me say at the beginning, I think freedom of speech is one of our greatest achievements in democracy, and corporations are an essential part of our economy, but corporations are creations of people. And originally, they were chartered with the obligation of existing for the public good."

"They have gained more power over the years and influenced our Congress, all of our legislators, to pass laws," Laird told RAW STORY. "They wrote their own regulations and then they appointed their own regulators. So the American people have no real control over any corporation."

Slowing to make his point clear, Laird issued a resolute call to action in his smoky baritone. "What really needs to happen is for the American people to rise up, get off our knees and say we've had enough and we're going to elect people who represent us," he said.

Stopping completely, his eyes began to well up and he added, "It may take several elections, and maybe not in my lifetime, but I hope it does and I hope it happens soon that we'll have enough elected representatives to pass an amendment to the Constitution to abolish corporate personhood. And then it has to be ratified by the states. All of our legislators should promise to represent us in this effort."

**Jimaz** · August-20-10, 11:08 PM

In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending

Is it that citizens are no longer sufficiently confident to confront their corporate overlords or is it simple apathy? It's obviously unjust on its face.

Why so little uproar?

**Jimaz** · August-20-10, 11:31 PM

Consider the possibility that the citizens in actuality wield power over the artificially created corporations.

**Bigb23** · August-31-10, 04:27 PM

This is just not our problem apparently.This is right out of James Bond. Are they into our pockets yet or do we have our own version ?
http://www.wimp.com/biggestcompany/

**Jimaz** · August-31-10, 10:26 PM

Will Supreme Court Rule For One-Dollar-One-Vote?
Yes they will! [January 9, 2010 - 5:11pm ET]

The Supreme Court could say as soon as Monday that corporate executives are free to use huge amounts of corporate resources to directly influence elections. The vote will probably be 5-4 and we know which 5 and which 4 and why.

If this happens it will fundamentally change the way our elections are decided, our leaders are chosen, and our laws are made. The ruling will complete the transition, already underway, from a one-person-one-vote ideal to a corrupt one-dollar-one-vote system run for the benefit of those with the most dollars to throw into elections. And of course those with access to the most corporate dollars will use their new influence to increase their own dollars - and influence - at the expense of those with fewer dollars. Monopoly capitalism will be the New World Order.

It is simple to imagine how unlimited direct use of corporate resources will change our lives. Just for example, suppose executives at a chemical company want to save money by dumping toxins into a nearby river. Suppose a county or state government is trying to block this. Imagine the effect unlimited direct corporate money can have in a county or even a state election. Of course those executives will be able put in place a local or state government that lets them dump into the river. They probably will be able to get laws passed preventing their company from being sued for the resulting cancers. I know that this sounds pretty darn close to the political system that we have today but with direct use of corporate resources to influence elections the corrupting influence will be much more direct and corrosive.

This is not what some call corporatism and is not about companies making decisions, because companies don't think or make decisions. This is about executives -- people -- at the helm of huge, powerful companies using the company's vast resources to benefit themselves. This is at the expense of people in other, smaller companies...

It's just legalized graft. How can that be denied? It's disgusting.

**Detroitej72** · September-01-10, 08:41 AM

Target ain't people!

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8113986?fr=yvmtf

**oladub** · September-01-10, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Target ain't people!

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8113986?fr=yvmtf

Target is a subsidiary of Dayton-Hudson, as in 'J.L. Hudson'. Since the demonstrations, Target has announced that it will also contribute an equal amount to other organizations and candidates with pro-gay views so this is stale news although the demonstration was fun. Move-on is disappointed that it failed to get the money after trying to shake down Target by targeting [[pun) the donation as a pro-gay contribution rather than as a pro-business donation. Target gave the money to a pro business organization which, in turn, gave some of the money to a candidate with pro-business positions but who failed to support a gay agenda.

What an odd company to shake down though. Mark Dayton, the former Democrat US Senator from Minnesota is the son of the founder of Dayton-Hudson. It explains how he can pay for his own campaigns even though he personally doesn't own Dayton stock. That's what trust funds are for. Dayton is presently running for Governor against the guy who received the funding from MN Forward for his pro-business views.

Best Buy also contributed to MN Forward, if anyone here is looking for companies to boycott.

**rb336** · September-01-10, 02:28 PM

corporations aren't people, they screw people:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053...ss-us_business

**maxx** · September-03-10, 08:30 AM

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...l_protections/
"...At least the ruling upholds requirements that the source of political spending be disclosed. [[Justice Clarence Thomas would have uprooted even that.)..."

Thank you, GHW Bush. His nomination of Thomas has got to be the absolute low point of his political career. He screwed the American people out of a decent justice just to improve his chances of re-election. He should roast in hell for it, and I don't even believe in hell.