Stopping Corporate Power

[maxx]

http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/co...ntent_KEY=6871
"...Congress and the States may make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the speech and association of corporations and other artificial entities created for business purposes. This article shall not authorize restrictions not otherwise permissible on the freedom of speech or of the press enjoyed by a corporation or entity whose business is the publication or broadcasting of information, when such corporation or entity is engaged in that business. A corporation or other artificial entity created for business purposes includes a corporation or entity that, although not itself engaged in business pursuits, receives the majority of its funding from other corporations or artificial entities created for business purposes..."

[Jimaz]

http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/co...ntent_KEY=6871
"...Congress and the States may make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the speech and association of corporations and other artificial entities created for business purposes. This article shall not authorize restrictions not otherwise permissible on the freedom of speech or of the press enjoyed by a corporation or entity whose business is the publication or broadcasting of information, when such corporation or entity is engaged in that business. A corporation or other artificial entity created for business purposes includes a corporation or entity that, although not itself engaged in business pursuits, receives the majority of its funding from other corporations or artificial entities created for business purposes..."

Thumbs up! Makes perfect sense!

[oladub]

When I read through the two options the first time, I was looking at them wondering if unions would be included and concluded that yes they would since they are tied to corporations and wouldn't exist without them. However, the question was answered that no, unions wouldn't be affected. I think that point and definitions should be spelled out a bit better in the draughts. Otherwise, the amendment would be more open to 'interpretation'.

Also, there is nothing forbidding, for instance, owners and very well paid executives from forming their own unions, or whatever they want to call them, to collect money for the policy, candidates, or party of their choice. It's a loophole big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through if unions are exempt.

Alan Keyes had a better proposal some years ago that would only allow campaign contributions from natural persons. In other words, corporations, unions, religious groups and other such entities would not be allowed to contribute to campaigns.

Some of the angst toward corporations is misplaced. There are a variety of issues where unions and management are on the same side. For instance, laws about imported cars, tariffs on those imports, and regulations which would put Big-3 automakers at a disadvantage, are issues that unions and management can sometimes agree on. Even if unions weren't also controlled by this proposed amendment, they might be surprised to see US factories closing at a faster pace because they lost an occasional political ally.

There is also a notion suggested in the proposed amendments that there is one press or official press; that information is the department of sanctioned recognized press representatives. That might be true of rigid authoritarian societies but we all get information and opinions from a variety of sources. I don't feel that I need to be protected from Jehovah Witness tracts, the UAW Solidarity program I used to hear on the radio, advertisements telling me how I want to buy something, or the rantings of a full spectrum of politicians. I guess I like some of my information raw and not in MSM pellet form.

[maxx]

The problem with campaign ads in the U.S. is that no one has ever been taken to court recently for lying about a candidate. In fact, the amount of lies in campaigns is making our political process pretty sleazy. The British are dicussing this.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourking...n-uk-elections
"...In the aftermath of the election, Watkins filed a legal challenge to the result. Woolas had breached the Representation of the People Act [[RPA), he said, because he had published several false statements about him in order to sway the electorate in his favour. .."

Then multiply this by hundreds of ads a week on TV and radio and the campaign becomes a war of propaganda points. One side ends up spending a lot of their money just countering the lies. As much as we would like every voter to be well-educated and motivated to do his/her own research, it is still hard to overcome a barrage of ads if you use any type of media.

[Jimaz]

I don't agree or disagree with this article but I do believe we're ripe for something as big and game-changing as this.

Nader: Progressive-libertarian alliance ‘the most exciting new political dynamic’ in US

Prepare for the rise of libertarian progressives.

That was the message earlier in the week from trends analyst Gerald Celente, who predicted that the rapid acceleration of wealth into the coffers of the ultra-rich would drive a global youth resistance movement in 2011 and reformat long-held political boundaries....

Nader has long been an advocate of overturning "corporate personhood": an oft' criticized legal principle that treats massive organizations with vast stores of wealth as individuals under the law....

Nader added that the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which recently failed due to a secret hold by a Republican Senator even in the face of support by libertarian conservatives and progressive liberals, could be the linchpin that brings the two groups together....

He added that a coming "liberal-conservative connection" will ultimately "draw that distinction between the corporatist and the genuine libertarian conservatives."...

[maxx]

http://www.citizen.org/citizens-unit...versary-events

[jiminnm]

The problem with campaign ads in the U.S. is that no one has ever been taken to court recently for lying about a candidate.

Not sure if this specific issue has ever been adjudicated, but there has been some litigation where voters sued to remove an elected official because he lied during a campaign. The courts have universally refused to do so saying that the remedy is the electoral process [[or, I suppose, recall him where that option available).

That isn't the problem. The problem is that the American electorate appears to presume that the person who can run the best campaign is also the best person to do the job. History has shown that to not be true more often that it is true.

[maxx]

Recently the SCOTUS actually limited corporate power.
http://www.slate.com/id/2281715/
[I wonder what percentage of the bill AT&T owed the gov. that $500K settlement was.]

"...The matter was resolved and a $500,000 settlement reached, but then CompTel, a trade association made up of AT&T competitors, filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act to look at all the investigation files. FOIA was enacted in 1966 to give private citizens greater access to government records.
But AT&T felt, passionately, that turning over these materials would violate the corporation's 'personal privacy.'..."

[Detroitej72]

Alan Keyes had a better proposal some years ago that would only allow campaign contributions from natural persons. In other words, corporations, unions, religious groups and other such entities would not be allowed to contribute to campaigns.

That is a proposal that I would support. In addition, I would make it transparent who the donors were. That way, any concerned citizen could find out for themselves what political agenda the contributors have.

[3WC]

The AT&T case mentioned above, in which AT&T and many amici are trying to obtain a decision confirming that corporations, as legal persons, have a right to privacy, is currently before the Su. Ct.

Those folks above who object to the holding in Citizens United are basically saying that U.S. citizens are too stupid to analyze propaganda, from whatever the source. They're probably right, but why not pick on propaganda promulgated by the Dem/Repub Parties, labor unions, and every other special interest group that can buy some ink? Lay off corporations.

[TKshreve]

That is a proposal that I would support. In addition, I would make it transparent who the donors were. That way, any concerned citizen could find out for themselves what political agenda the contributors have.

Or better yet, what political agenda the candidate will have once elected.

[oladub]

Scanning the news today, GE improbably popped up in three different contexts.

Backtracking a bit, GE is or was the owner of MSNBC and NBC. On another thread, I referred to how the official press was handling similar situations differently. They are players as much as they are reporters it seems. I saw how the press contrived to effect the results of both the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries. The mainstream press upholds the status quo for its masters. GE is one of its masters.

The first article had to do with GE selling it's jet plane guidance systems to China. These systems can be useful in China's military aircraft. I am reminded of the technology Clinton handed to the Chinese. Maybe these things are necessary to keep on good terms with one's banker.

How GE Is Arming China to Compete With Boeing -- and America

The second article had to do with GE spending more on lobbying than any other US company.
GE, Seeking New Engine and NBC Deal, Was Top Spender

The third article is about President Obama appointing GE"s Immelt to be the head of the new national competitiveness board, by executive order, which is supposed to spur job creation. It is ironic that Mr. Immelt is charged with creating US jobs after a career of exporting US jobs. However, under his leadership, GE has received bailout money from TARP. GE got the contract to manage the records facility for Obamacare. Mr. Immelt was also a former Governor of the NY branch of the Federal Reserve. GE's Immelt to Head Obama's New 'Jobs and Competitiveness' Board

TARP money, Federal Reserve, corporatism, and the media are all in the same bed together and the mainstream press is often tasked with the press releases of it's corporate masters.

[maxx]

...the mainstream press is often tasked with the press releases of it's corporate masters.

And the Republicans like it that way. Didn't I hear that they are talking about cutting funding to public broadcasting again? And they claim to be concerned about public education.

[mjs]

It is sad that we keep cutting public broadcasting funding and public campaign financing. It certainly gives the corporate broadcasters and lobbyists a relatively louder voice. I'm hoping Wikileaks becomes the monkey wrench in their system that Assange hopes it will be. Its down right scary how far the government is wiling to go to threaten any organization that won't conspire with them to remove organizations like Wikileaks from the marketplace of ideas as well.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...006789,00.html

I still think the key is to simply follow the Constitution and return power to the states so the efficiency of the bribery, I mean private campaign financing, becomes so weak that its no longer profitable.