Hightower writes: "When a corporate and governmental cabal makes such a power play that the very idea of it becomes a national joke, both the idea and the cabal are in trouble. That's the case with the comical claim of 'personhood' for corporations."
Texas' progressive political curmudgeon, Jim Hightower. (photo: JimHightower.com)
Repeal the Farce of 'Corporate Personhood'
19 January 12
he Powers That Be constantly try to pull the wool over people's eyes, but sometimes the wool blinders are so itchy that people rip them off and clearly see the scam.
One of the itchiest ever is the Kafkaesque fiction, put forth by America's right-wing power establishment, that corporations are "persons' with the Constitutional right to control our elections with their bottomless troves of corporate cash. This is an absurd perversion of nature itself. A person, after all, has a navel. Where's the corporate navel – or its heart, brain, or soul?
Also, if a corporation is a person, shouldn't it be subject to front-line military duty, to jail for its criminal violations, and even to the death penalty? As a reader pointed out to me in a recent email, many states do not allow persons under 18 years of age to marry (or, in corporate terminology, to merge). Plus, such young persons are subject to curfews and cannot legally be served alcohol. If you see a young corporation violating any of these teen laws – call the cops on them!
When a corporate and governmental cabal makes such a power play that the very idea of it becomes a national joke, both the idea and the cabal are in trouble. That's the case with the comical claim of "personhood" for corporations. All across the country, beneath the radar of American's clueless elites, a savvy and scrappy grassroots coalition is mobilizing to overturn the anti-democratic effort by the Supreme Court, corporate front groups, and political sell-outs to enthrone corporate money over the people. On January 20th and 21st there will be two national days of action to rally public support for a Constitutional amendment to reject the farce of corporate personhood.
To join the rebellion, connect with www.United4ThePeople.org.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 19 February 2012
|
 21 February 2012
|
 21 February 2012
|
 20 February 2012
|
 20 February 2012
|
 19 February 2012
|
 19 February 2012
|
 21 February 2012
|
 20 February 2012
|
Comments
So far, I have not participated in any Occupy events, but I will be there for this one!! I better get busy on a protest sign.
Funny it never occurred to the Founders of this nation to install protections against the possibility of inane, insane, moronic gibberish being enacted into Law by The Highest Court In The Land.
That this nonsensical drivel has actually become the Law of the Land is all the proof necessary in demonstration of the degree to which the systemic rot is now endemic in "Our Government".
No one any longer makes the any pretense that the U.S. Government has the slightest connection to "we the people", and they obviously don't care who knows it ! "We" were factored out of the equation so long ago that we are little more than an annoying memory.
We should all write to the SSA and ask them when our favorite corporation got their SS#!
I've heard that the SSA gives a SS# to every new born baby, once they are able to see their belly button. And, in keeping with the idea of extreme data surfing, it is duly noted whether said belly button is an inney or an outey.
Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?
Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or a Tony? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or a Polk or Peabody Award? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?
Has a corporation ever performed Schubert's Ave Maria?
Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?
Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?
Should corporations kiss on the first date?
Our lives - yours and mine - have more worth than any goddamned corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision in Citzens United v FEC is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling, it is an insult to our humanity.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
This law is an obvious statement in favor of wealth ruling the country. Who do they think wields the power of the "Corporate Person"? It is obviously the few humans(?) at the very top of the corporate structure. The law makes them Super Citizens, with vastly more power than the rest of us.
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Maybe then the National Debt would be paid off sooner!!
I wonder how the IRS would feel if millions started filing as corporations for lower taxes?
Millions of Amuhrikans - in the 1% - already pay little or no taxes. Mitt, after all, pays at a rate of 15% - on the income that is not hidden in offshore tax havens.
Let't make them the "Powers That Were"
REMOVE them from their "seats of power" by CONCRETE action and EFFECTIVE strategies as is suggested here in this article.
We must somehow come up with strategies to dethrone the US Supreme Court who obviously sees themselve as "UNTOUCHABLE".
They are not! We need to move to demonstrate that REALITY, effectively and swiftly.
We must also , meanwhile, nutralize the impact or effect that money has on the Democratic process, particularly the right of Human Beings with "navels" to have themselves represented by elected and appointed officials who know the difference between a Human Being (Person) and a thing (Corporation).
Recall these Congressmen/women who do not vote for the Constitutional Admendmet to undo the Court's decision.
Let them see what votes from real humans can do .
What about the use of shareholder money to support politicians, without the direct approval of those shareholders?
The reason was listed as security reasons. This Bush and Cheney/ Republican tactic is ridiculous and just shows us how deep the Republicans have reached into controling any opposition to their plan to put America under Corporate Control.
We, the People have a right to Peaceful Assembly.If this had happened in China or Iran, it would be all over the News with Hillary Clinton and the UN denouncing this as a human Rights Violation and a violation of freedom of speech that has been given by the COURTS to corporations ONLY!
But, if the corporations are people, we are not, and have no rights in America.
This is where things now stand.And this is where we MUST make sure this corporate RAID and HOSTILE TAKE OVER of our Country should fail.
Corporate Raiders are on the move. Thank you Republicans.
But all that speech is worthless if the speaker is not *heard*. Money does not equal speech. Money equals being heard.
Those without money are not heard no matter how much they speak (unless they speak with the Second Amendment, which may be the only language, other than money, which the 1% might understand), and those with money are heard no matter how little they actually speak. So, in essence, while the founders meant "one man, one vote", the Supreme Court has decided it is "one dollar, one vote." The more money you have, the more votes you get. After all, the corporations would not be spending all that money if it didn't work.
To be continued:
What the Supreme Court has done is activist legislation from the bench, ruling there is now a Constitutional Right To Be Heard. That is not in the Constitution but no one is listening to those without money so it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court might argue that if the people don't like it they can vote the bastards out. But again, those corporations wouldn't spend all that money if it wasn't buying the people's votes with intellectual capture (Stockholm Syndrome), as well as buying the bastards outright.
But the people deserve this. They will deserve better when they reacquaint themselves with the pitchfork, or better yet, the guillotine, or even better still, Thomas Jefferson and the Second Amendment.
Look at GE as an example. They showed a loss inside the US, thus garnering a tax benefit from the federal government while they had a record profit year outside the US, which was not subject to taxation. If they are, in fact, persons, then that income should be subject to taxation, just as it would for you or me.
Limitation on responsibility means "externalization " of costs, which is socialism.
So here we have government interference in the free market allowing some people to limit their responsibility and socialize their costs; all so these so-called (physics-defying) bootstrapping, self-made, rugged individualist, swash-buckling men of daring-do can pretend they carry the weight of America on their shoulders. WTF?
Capitalism is great, if only these assholes would practice it by internalizing ALL their costs like a true risk-taker would. Barring that, and when society agrees to allow them some leeway, you'd think they would not whine so much about taxes for social programs designed to pick up the mess they leave behind.
Where is the "Elizabeth-Warren-style" education, one-liners, and bullets on this, speaking to all the Joe The Plummers of this country? Mr. President?
If I can make a $1,000,000.00 off a $100.00 investment, then why should I not also be held strictly, jointly and severally liable for the full amount if my $100.00 investment results in $1,000,000.00 in damages?
I'll tell you why: Because the government says the people shall bear that $1,000,000.00 in damages, all so the cowards will free up the $100.00 for capital investment. We all get to breathe shitty air, drink shitty water, eat shitty food and otherwise suffer shitty cost externalization s to boost the economy.
But at what point in time did we all actually agree to sell our air, water, food, etc. in a free, fair, open, arms-length, negotiated transaction in a true capitalist market? Was it when we voted? I think not. Especially when crap like Citizens United is the result.
Voting is the new opiate of the masses.
Capitalism abhors true value in a vacuum.
It is the job of capitalism to take that which is valuable, free and abundant and reduce it in quality and/or quantity to the point were it can be sold for profit. And that's okay with unnecessary shit like a widget.
But space, air, water, food? Notice the inverse order of attack? First they went after food, next water (I can remember when people did not buy water) and pretty soon they will be selling clean air. And we'll pay for it. We won't have a choice. Then they will charge us for existing in "our" (?) own cubic feet of space.
So, regarding Citizens United, what else used to be free and abundant? How about speech, and a vote? Is it any wonder they are after that too?
Mark my words.
Seems like we never hear from you any more these days. It's good that you showed up at the party. Now don't go hiding away for so long again. Give 'em hell!
Just imagine the benefits! Now candidates would have to choose between hammering us with another campaign ad full of lies and distortions or having money go to the "election office" to bolster their chance of winning. From the perspective of the 99 percent, a donation to the candidate or PAC that goes to a TV station for a campaign ad is just funneling more money to the one percent! If you send it directly to the Election Office on behalf of the candidate of your choice, you avoid giving it to the one percent and give it instead to the government which is, technically, all of us, 99 plus 1.
"SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution
of the United States are the rights of natural persons and
do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability
companies, or other private entities established for business
purposes or to promote business interests under the
laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state. "
It crosses the line into the area of total madness that such a statement needs to be made into a constitutional amendment. What this says about the mentality of the Supreme Court Justices who voted for this absurdity is so devastating as to leave me bewildered. What on Earth are these people thinking about? What are their values? Can they be considered sane at all?
I have similar confusions about the corporate "leaders" of large gas and coal and oil companies (obviously among those "Super Citizens" who control the "Corporate Personhood" of their energy companies), who are putting profit before the survival of the Planet-wide ecosystems we all depend upon for our survival. There is a massive chasm between sane and obvious understandings of reality and the image these people have of their purposes as beings. They are spending huge amounts of their (functionally untaxed) corporate profits on advertising that flies in the face of hard science and obvious evidence of Global Warming. This is not a game. They will drive us all into disaster.
It is known that Scalia/Thomas are on the "take" from Koch brothers - published online and in the news! Never denied by them. The House is supposed to start impeachment if a Supreme has political or monetary connections - and "person hood" is a motion by the Koch Brothers! THANK YOU GOP/TP
Vote 2012 - Vote DEM on all -- even if not all DEM are "totally clean" -- WHY? Want a government full of "W" + Cheney + "person hoods"?
1. 1/20/2012 Tonight: Watch Bernie and Bill Moyers discuss the ruling on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher »
2. Today: Listen to Bernie on The Thom Hartmann Program at a special time: 2 pm ET, 11 am PT »
http://www.thomhartmann.com/
3. Read Bernie’s column in The Guardian »
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=f9b75db4-82fa-42b8-82bc-1abd08990fb9
4. Read Bernie’s column in U.S. News & World Report »
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics/overturn-citizens-united
5. Petition: Show your support for the Saving American Democracy Amendment »
What do you think? Was the court right or wrong. Take the poll » http://sanders.senate.gov/polls/index.cfm
If they are in the same business, would that be illegal in some states? Just sayin'
BUT let's be clear... it is NOT. Citizens United was actually the very first time the Court ruled that corporations are persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment.
The fiction that Citizens United is merely an elaboration and expansion of some venerable earlier ruling is camouflage, a rather stupid and transparent attempt to create the appearance of some sort of historically based legal continuity.
The only place in the 1886 ruling mentions that corporations are people is in the header. The header was not written by the Court. The header, which is not part of the ruling and has no legal status was written by the Court clerk who has no legal authority what-so-ever.
RSS feed for comments to this post.