Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Van Gelder writes: "... the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life."

Eighty percent of Americans oppose Citizens United, which turns two years old today. (photo: PointNineNine.com)
Eighty percent of Americans oppose Citizens United, which turns two years old today. (photo: PointNineNine.com)



Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable

By Sarah van Gelder, YES! Magazine

21 January 12

 

7 signs the corporatocracy is losing its legitimacy ... and 7 populist tools to help shut it down.

ou may remember that there was a time when apartheid in South Africa seemed unstoppable.

Sure, there were international boycotts of South African businesses, banks, and tourist attractions. There were heroic activists in South Africa, who were going to prison and even dying for freedom. But the conventional wisdom remained that these were principled gestures with little chance of upending the entrenched system of white rule.

"Be patient," activists were told. "Don't expect too much against powerful interests with a lot of money invested in the status quo."

With hindsight, though, apartheid's fall appears inevitable: the legitimacy of the system had already crumbled. It was harming too many for the benefit of too few. South Africa's freedom fighters would not be silenced, and the global movement supporting them was likewise tenacious and principled.

In the same way, the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life. Some examples:

  • Powerful corporations socialize their risks and costs, but privatize profits. That means we, the 99 percent, pick up the tab for environmental clean ups, for helping workers who aren't paid enough to afford food or health care, for bailouts when risky speculation goes wrong. Meanwhile, profits go straight into the pockets of top executives and others in the 1 percent.

  • The financial collapse threw millions of Americans into poverty. 25 million are unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work; four million have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Poverty increased 27 percent between 2006 and 2010. And students who graduated with student loans in 2010  had borrowed 5 percent more than the previous year's graduating class - owing more than $25,000. Meanwhile, those who caused the collapse continue the same practices. And the unwillingness of the 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes means the the public services we rely on are fraying.

  • Scientists say that we are on the brink of runaway climate change; we only have a few years to make the needed investments in clean power and energy efficiency. This transition <could be a huge job creator - on the order of the investments made during World War II, which got us out of the Depression. But fossil fuel industries don't want to see their investment in dirty energy undermined by the switch to clean energy and conservation. So far, by paying millions to climate deniers, lobbyists, and political campaigns, they've succeeded in stymieing change.

  • Agribusiness get taxpayer subsidies for foods that make us sick; for farming practices that destroy rivers, soils, the climate, and the oceans; and for trade practices that cause hunger at home and abroad.

  • Through ALEC, the private prison industry crafts state laws that boost the numbers behind bars, lengthen sentences, and privatize prisons.

  • Big Pharma jacks up prices; insurance companies raise premiums and delivers fewer benefits; the burden of inflated care drags down the economy and bankrupts families. But only a very few politicians stand up to the health care industry's war chests and advocate for Canadian-style single-payer health care, which would go a long way toward solving the cost problem.

  • Corporations and wealthy executives fund an army of lobbyists and election campaigns, spreading untruths and self-serving policy prescriptions.

It's not that we, the people, haven't noticed all this.

In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans said too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations. In a poll by Time Magazine, 86 percent of Americans said Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

And 80 percent of Americans oppose Citizens United, the pro-corporate Supreme Court ruling that turns two years old today. Eighty percent - that's among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

Some say corporations have such a strong grip on politicians and big media that it is impossible to challenge them, no matter how many of us there are.

But I believe we can do it. In the past few months, YES! Magazine has been researching ways that ordinary people can challenge corporate power (look for strategies in our spring issue, out in February). And we found that there are actually a lot of tools at our disposal:

  • Corporations were created by public law to provide a public benefit. If we the people no longer feel that a corporation is providing a benefit - or if we feel that it is operating in a lawless and destructive manner - we can revoke their charter. That's what Free Speech for People has asked the attorney general of Delaware to do to Massey Energy, which has been one of the worst culprits in mountaintop removal and which has operated its mines in a lawless and negligent manner, resulting in 29 deaths at the Upper Big Branch Mine.

  • We can insist that, in exchange for use of our public airwaves, broadcasters provide free airtime to candidates for public office. If they don't need to raise millions for media buys, they don't need to be as beholden to the 1 percent.

  • We can get our governments to quit banking with Bank of America and Chase, and start our own state banks - 14 states, including California and Washington, are considering such a move. And while we're at it, we can localize food, energy, and other aspects of our economy so local, independent businesses and cooperatives can thrive.

  • We can stand up to specific parts of the corporate agenda by engaging in the sort of direct action that halted the KXL Pipeline.

  • We can call for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, corporate personhood, and the ridiculous notion that money is the same thing as speech. So far, Los Angeles, New York City, and about 50 other towns and cities have done so far.

  • We can use mechanisms like clean elections, electoral transparency, citizen review of legislation, and recalls to keep corporate control of our democracy in check.

  • Finally, the reason I am most hopeful today: We can take a cue from Occupy Wall Street and continue to name the source of political corruption - something the political establishment and mainstream media have refused to do. We can occupy homes that are slated for foreclosure, as people have been doing all over the country. We can mic check places like Walmarts that intimidate and fire workers who want to unionize. We can set up tents in public places and in other ways join with the Occupy movement to take a stand for a world that works for the 100 percent - a world where we all benefit.

None of these actions will be easy. It will take time - potentially years of work - to make big change. But just as the legitimacy of apartheid crumbled well before the institutions of apartheid went down, the legitimacy of corporate rule is crumbling. So I'm convinced that, with you and me and all the others out there creating alternatives and taking a stand, we will see change.


Sarah van Gelder will deliver these comments at Seattle's rally on the second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling. Sarah is YES! Magazine's co-founder and executive editor, and editor of the new book: ""This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement."

 

Comments  

 
+18 # CandH 2012-01-21 12:31
"Powerful corporations socialize their risks and costs, but privatize profits. That means we, the 99 percent, pick up the tab for environmental clean ups, for helping workers who aren't paid enough to afford food or health care, for bailouts when risky speculation goes wrong. Meanwhile, profits go straight into the pockets of top executives and others in the 1 percent." --This is Feudalism (not Capitalism BTW)

"Corporations were created by public law to provide a public benefit. If we the people no longer feel that a corporation is providing a benefit - or if we feel that it is operating in a lawless and destructive manner - we can revoke their charter." --One problem: the DoJ won't enforce the Rule of Law against Corporations and Officers thereof.

"But just as the legitimacy of apartheid crumbled well before the institutions of apartheid went down, the legitimacy of corporate rule is crumbling." --Uninformed analogy. Read Naomi Klein's Chapter "Democracy Born in Chains: South Africa's Constricted Freedom" for reference (http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2011/02/democracy-born-chains)
 
 
+5 # dfvboulder 2012-01-22 08:29
On the tactic of revoking a corporation's charter, the DoJ is not in charge of this.

Each state issues its own corporate charters. Many of the large corporations are incorporated in Delaware, or in one of a few corporate-friendly states. Those states can revoke any corporate charter on their own.
 
 
+34 # Barbara K 2012-01-21 12:37
With all the money these corporations are throwing at the election, I'm wondering where their stockholders are? Isn't some or all of that money supposed to be going to the stockholders? I know I would sell off my stock if the corporation holding it were big money at an election that should be coming to me. Something stinks here. Maybe some of these companies should crumble, they are certainly not investing wisely, they are gambling it away.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our future and livelihoods are at stake
 
 
+45 # artful 2012-01-21 12:40
As I am in the twilight of my life, it would be nice to contemplate a world in which my grandchildren are not ruled by a few robber barons and corrupt corporate-persons. It would equally be nice to think of some future Supreme Court whose members, contrary to the current bunch, were intent on upholding the rule of law for the betterment of the people rather than rich corporate owners.
 
 
+27 # Barbara K 2012-01-21 12:42
Bravo, Ms. vanGelder!!!! You are right on the mark. We can do all these things you mention, and we must, if we are to return this country to her people. Good luck with your speech at Seattle's rally, wish I could be there.
 
 
+3 # Barkingcarpet 2012-01-21 12:48
Vote for me, and join the Tikkun cabinet. Lets clean house, and create a sane future. If not, well,would you rather be toast?
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/27-27/9543-sierra-salin-for-president
 
 
+29 # Virginia 2012-01-21 12:51
Absolutely, Sarah! We can start today and sign the MoveOn.org petition to stop President Obama from giving the Wall Street banks a blanket pardon and hold them accountable for their fraud and the worldwide economic collapse. Sign the Petition to Investigate the Wall Street banks today. Be heard loud and clear. Sign today! http://pol.moveon.org/bankfraud/?rc=homepage
 
 
+4 # X Dane 2012-01-21 17:13
Virginia. Already did
 
 
+1 # RLF 2012-01-22 03:28
Move On??? They have been such a bunch of pansies since Obama got elected...they didn't demand his his kissing business butt stop. I wouldn't trust them with anything!
 
 
+15 # lincolnimp 2012-01-21 13:55
Finally....someone who sees the cup at least half full. Yes, it will take work and the results will be agonizingly slow to make their presence felt....but as long as we have the will and the patience to proceed in the dismantling of the Corporate takeover of America, we will prevail. Probably after I'm gone, but I'll be doing what I can in the meantime.
 
 
-47 # MidwestTom 2012-01-21 14:16
I believe that the simple attempt of this law was to allow companies to balance the cash from unions. So far this year the unions have won out contributing the companies 10 to 7 according to the WSJ. Many people want public funding, but that would almost guarantee the reelection of every present office holder, because a challenger always has to spend more than a sitting office holder.
 
 
+33 # Ken Hall 2012-01-21 14:57
Tom, please check some reliable sources before posting your comments here. People on these threads do their homework. Regurgitating absurd factoids gleaned from a right-wing pundit only makes a person sound ridiculous. Unions have nothing approaching the clout of corporations in politics, nothing near what corporations have at their disposal, the conservative onslaught has effectively reduced their numbers and their room to maneuver. Corporations are making billions in profit and aren't paying much in taxes, and what better way to use that money than invest it in a politician, the return is quite good, as we can see, just look around. And they get a doubling effect because the CEOs are also able to contribute millions in order to suborn politicians while the rank and file has to spend their disposable income, IF they have any, on rent, medical bills, food, etc. It just amazes me sometimes, the positions you take.
 
 
+20 # jon 2012-01-21 17:03
Quoting
I believe that the simple attempt of this law was to allow companies to balance the cash from unions. So far this year the unions have won out contributing the companies 10 to 7 according to the WSJ. Many people want public funding, but that would almost guarantee the reelection of every present office holder, because a challenger always has to spend more than a sitting office holder.



Unions are PIPSQUEAKS compared to the financial clout of the corporations who employ their members.

Think about it! The owners of the buildings, machinery, executive jets, etc., compared to the combined dues paid by their wage slaves, is an absurd comparison.

LMAO !!
 
 
+8 # Lulie 2012-01-22 09:54
But if the workers would join together, they would have the more powerful weapon: numbers of people. The poor everyman has gone up against the moneyed interests before -- and won. It's a question of workers taking a stand. Some would pay dearly, as in the past, but if they want it bad enough, as a group, they could succeed.
 
 
+4 # Texas Aggie 2012-01-22 19:35
I am assuming that you actually know better because otherwise I would have to believe that you are too lazy to check the data. As I am sure you know, the top three donors to public elections are corporations and only two of the top ten are unions. Since I am sure you are aware of the gist of this although maybe not the fine details, that leaves only one conclusion as to why you posted the statements that you did.
 
 
+17 # John Locke 2012-01-21 14:32
Great Article and to the Point, OWS is the vehicle to bring about real change...the catalist is the corruption. There are many fronts that have opened up exposing Wall Street and our government, (One is our Supreme Court) remember the Fugitive Slave laws, African Americans were considered by the Supreme Court to be property!...How did they make a determination that a human being could be owned or be property, its the times and how this court thinks. it is arcaic and needs to be modernized by having the justices pass a qualification test.... to see if they are truely qualified for that office... we have (5) now who are not!... The Banks and corporations also look at us as property not human beings with feelings and emotions. Insurance is a good example of that, denying benefits and allowing their claimants to die, that is inhuman...
 
 
+7 # X Dane 2012-01-21 20:52
John. I totally agree with you that the five judges are despicable, certainly Thomas and Scalia are AT LEAST unethical.


I believe, most of us here think so. I think they are,. what the right likes to call liberal judges....activist....Now my question to you is Who decides if a judge is qualified???

I would love to know, and you seem to me to be so informed about a great many issues.
It may be difficult to determine. qualification, for a judge, democrats find qualified, republicans most likely will not. Soooooooo how do we proceed??
 
 
+3 # John Locke 2012-01-22 07:27
X Dane: The criteria should be based on an understanding of the constitution with a closed book exam. The questions should be based on a paragraph that gives an out line of a specific fact based scenario, just like a Bar Exam. but if they get less than 90% they fail. You will find very few will pass this test, I think this is obvious by the split decisions coming from the Supreme Court now... FYI, This court is controlled by who is put on it...example President Grant Stacked the Supreme Court by adding Bradley and Strone (Two Railroad Attorneys) to overturn the Legal Tender Cases that went against the Government the year before...and we are now living under a corrupt money system ever since... Paper was NEVER Meant to be a Legal Tender...and Lincoln appointed as chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase, who was his secretary of the Treasury and who was the designer of the U.S. Notes which were redeemable after the war...see- Hepburn v. Griswold 1870 over turned by Know V Lee 1871, The Supreme Court is a controlled political organ...and has always been...
 
 
+2 # John Locke 2012-01-22 08:27
X Dane a second approach and one I favor is to change the structure of the Supreme Court as follows: (two) people from each state one with a law background and the other a lay-person, nominated by each state, that would be 100 members on the court, but delegated by the State and not under the control of either congress or the president, they Must decide each and every case under the Standard of " Beyond all reasonable doubt" they must all agree...as the system is now, the states lose where the Federal Interest is strongest, taking away States rights little by little. This would insure that the State stayed supreme where it should be...
 
 
+7 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-21 15:23
Articles like this give me hope. Like listening to the Beatles "Revolution." It makes me want to stand down and put my anger toward peaceful, constructive use, as if there really is hope.

On the other hand, I can't help but wonder what might have been spirited out of South Africa when it became clear apartheid would fall? Where did it go? Who has it? Are they now somewhere, sitting fat dumb and happy? Was the loss of that wealth a small price to pay; so small that it should be forgotten about and swept under the rug while South Africa moves on with the more important task of rebuilding, sans revenge?

What do the answers to those questions mean for us, here in America, should we ever get our country back? Personally, I think we should be tracking that wealth right fucking now, because I have a feeling it's going to end up on the 64th story of some Dubai condo on a man-made island, owned by the 1% and protected by some ex-pat spec operators trained on our nickel.

Doesn't Mitt already have a passel of his loot in the Caimans? I know Bush and Cheney have ranches, but what's their Plan B?

Now that I have my tin foil hat on, I want to be the first into the Skull and Bones basement. I bet Saddam's and Osama's skulls are in there.

Now where did I put my looting cloths?
 
 
+7 # barbaratodish 2012-01-21 19:26
To Huck Mucus: Wherever the 1% go to, and wherever they take their money, possesions, etc.,they will have to take at least their EMOTIONAL DEFENSIVENESS with them, even if it is sub or unconscious emotional defensiveness. Regardless how much money, fame, power, etc., they have, I guarantee you that instead of getting restful, sleep there is a part of them that HAS to be defensive, if only it involves keeping and keeping track of what they have. So it really results in the fact that instead of HAVING their money, fame or power, their wealth, etc., HAS them! Proof of this is if you "scratch" anyone in the 1%, you get to see their defensiveness, and imagine the energy spent by the 1% co-opting and/or silencing independent media and tarring reputations of people like Ron Paul! Especially imagine the strain of having to be serious(instead of humorous) about how the top half of the 1% are comparing to the bottom half of the 1% that want to beat them at their as if "LIVING" PERFORMANCES, with their as if "LIVING" LIFE STYLE PERFORMANCES! In other words, just observe Rommney-ness, ooops I mean emptyness, well same thing!

Quoting
Articles like this give me hope...where did I put my looting cloths?
 
 
+3 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-21 19:57
Yes, I suppose I can take some solace in their defensiveness. But I do believe the best revenge is happiness and I hope the rest of us can find that virtue in necessity which makes "them" envious in their empty wealth as they look down upon us.
 
 
+18 # hd70642 2012-01-21 15:27
It is amazing all those folks who scapegoat unions have forgot for the most part over the last 40 years they have made concessions on both pay and benefits. Also they pay the outsourced factory workers far less than the minimum wage. Also all those knuckle heads that get all information from squak radio will blatter on about regulations forget these plants are ran by folks that have never spent one iota on the factory floor except for some photo opp so they are unfamiliar with all work and environmental dangers the jobs entails
 
 
+11 # Rick Levy 2012-01-21 17:12
Another recourse: public boycott a particular industry or company for x length of time.
 
 
+10 # BobHG 2012-01-21 17:28
America needs to get the corporatocracy out of its government. Easier said than done. A third party is needed, formed by the 99% which could be the People's Party for Real Democracy, otherwise, all the occupations will have been a waste of time, and things will go back to the way they were. No need for obscene sums of money to ensure victory - let the internet do the work.
 
 
+13 # ontheres 2012-01-21 18:48
James Michener said something to the effect that in all his travels, he had never seen anything as powerful as an idea whose time has come. The idea spreads, the time may well have come. Viva OWS!!!
 
 
+10 # tomo 2012-01-21 19:08
I like the spirit of the article. Let me contribute: I don't think we have yet begun to make any real use of the SHAME principle. When people are at a social event and someone who is the head of Goldman-Sachs shows up, it is incumbent on all decent people to leave the event. Likewise for AIG, Bank of America, Wells-Fargo. We should stop our callow acceptance of wealth as a sign of integrity and intelligence. (Listened to a documentary on Henry Kissinger the other night. It was a good documentary; but when individual commentators remarked on how "brilliant" Henry was, it made me want to puke. It was not brilliant to prolong the Vietnam War. It was not brilliant to oust Allende and replace him with Pinochet. It was not brilliant to support the oppressors of East Timor. It's a bad and unAmerican habit that leads so many of us--especially in the media--to genuflect whenever a "pillar of society"
wobbles by. Bankers who evict people from their homes with forged documents are scum. Financiers who bet against the stocks they are promoting--so as to make profits when the clients they recruit fail--are scum. People who put the Gulf of Mexico at risk are scum. When PG&E are so busy trying for a monopoly on California-energy needs that they neglect maintenance and blow a big hole in San Bruno, they should be made to feel lifelong shame. When Diane Feinstein votes Bush a freehand in Iraq, she should NEVER be permitted to walk away from that. Etc.
 
 
+2 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-21 19:52
Or, as Aldo Leopold said so long ago, in his typically perfect style: "We must make a virtue of necessity."
 
 
+3 # swv 2012-01-21 21:17
If you haven't found a petition to support on this topic, please find and sign this one-

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/saving-american-democracy-amendment/

and pass it on. We should have never allowed this tyranny to begin in the first place (in the late 1800s), and we surely have had enough!
 
 
+3 # amfisher1 2012-01-22 01:30
I posted this on my FB page and my raging republican friend asked where the facts are in this article. I said "open your eyes and look around." I don't have time to research and back up all of the facts so if anyone else happens to have some legitimate, verifiable links they can send me I would love to throw them in his face.
 
 
+2 # maddave 2012-01-22 09:15
I have no idea where the author, Sarah van Gelder, is living, but her non sequitur:

"In the same way, the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life."

originated on another planet or in some bizarre paralel universe!

If anything the grasping tentacles of Corporate America are raking in more and more of American workers' productivity and income than in any period since the Great Depression and, for some, since the abolition of slavery. They literally hire & fire the legislators who make our laws and set corporate regulations. I don't call that "crumbling".

Time & space allow for addressing only one of her points: the revocation of Massey Energy's charter. Maybe in Delaware will take positive action (don't hold your breath), but what about their moving to Nevada or Wyoming or Mississippi for another charter? They'd be welcomed with open arms. And in the light Citizens United & the Roberts court, how long do you think such a revocation would take or - if even revoked by Delaware - how many scarce, expensive resources (money & manpower) would be spent by both sides in the fight?

THE ONLY WAY TO BRING CORPORATE AMERICA TO HEEL IS TO GET ALL PRIVATE MONEY OUT OF THE ELECTION PROCESS. THE O N L Y WAY!
 
 
+1 # mwd870 2012-01-23 09:35
Quoting
I have no idea where the author, Sarah van Gelder, is living, but her non sequitur:

"In the same way, the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life."

originated on another planet or in some bizarre paralel universe!


The legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is not crumbling yet, but with the growing awareness of how this system benefits few and harms many, there will be increasing pressure for change. The corporate policies are seriously affecting people's lives. As Michael Moore said, there are 500 of them and millions of us.

This article is a good summary of the issues and how to fight back, even if it will take time. I agree with you the most important action is to get all private money out of the election process.
 
 
+4 # maddave 2012-01-22 09:30
IF the only way to bring Corporate America to heel is to get all private money out of the election process, then (for the immediate future) the only way to begin is to support Obama and give him a majority in the House & a supermajority in the Senate!

Think about it: you've seen the actions of a reactionary, obstructionist Congress for the past three years, and you must know that the GOP is the party of the 1%. Both of these factors will block any substantive action to roll back Citizens United (CU). I may be naive but for the time being OUR ONLY CHANCE at getting such an Amendment or a reconstituted Supreme Court (to reverse CU) is by our electing THE ONLY GROUP that may take such action: a Progressive President & Congress!
 
 
+3 # Kathymoi 2012-01-22 11:06
Yes. We can. This is a slogan that we can occupy and keep, and use rather than discard. We can do everything you listed, and much of it we can do without being arrested. I would add that we can change our own consumer practises. STop shopping at WalMart!!!!
 
 
-1 # Martintfre 2012-01-23 06:56
Remember corporate power exist only because government grants it power - corporations are children of government.
Also remember the republican and democratic parties are corporations.
 
 
-1 # Martintfre 2012-01-24 05:34
//Powerful corporations socialize their risks and costs, but privatize profits. //

ONLY because the majority of politicians from both parties made it possible.
 
 
-1 # Martintfre 2012-01-24 05:39
// the unwillingness of the 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes means the the public services we rely on are fraying.//

The politicians from BOTH parties ARE the 1% ... actually the 335 congress+100 senate + 9 supremes+ 1 president vs 330 million americans .. they are the (455/33000000 ) or the 0.00135 percent.
 
 
0 # sharag 2012-01-27 07:28
Corporations and those hiding in them must be brought to justice and punished for the crimes they have perpetrated. The banksters of Wall Street must be brought to justice and do the time they deserve. Doing time for the crime is not inevitable either.
 

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.