tagged w/ Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
-
By John Farmer/The Star-Ledger (shout out for JanforGore and all you Jersey folks)
They couldn’t find someone to lead them in their frustration and anger; President Obama was unavailable. So they’ve taken to the streets themselves in cities across the country.
Occupy Wall Street is a protest not seen here since the 1960s, a seminal event devoid of the ’60s violence but equally intense. All that is missing are barricades and theme music from “Les Miserables.”
On the surface, the event is an attack on the imperious Wall Street banks. But to see it as nothing more would be to misread what’s been happening in Lower Manhattan and all those other cities.
This is a protest against the powerful — the corporate and political elite of the country — by people who feel maddeningly powerless, mere discards in an increasingly exploitative capitalist economy dominated by callous corporate giants.
The search is on now for what it all means, with no shortage of talking heads ready to explain it all. Odds are they haven’t a clue. Only the politicians seem mute on the meaning, which may be instructive since they’re part of the problem.
Democrats, desperate for a lifeline, think it might signal the emergence of a left-wing tea party and fresh enthusiasm. But, ever in character, they don’t seem quite sure. Republicans, like their banker buddies and the financial press, are confident it will all blow over.
In truth, it’s hard to tell who’ll benefit politically, if anybody.
It is, in a sense, a rebuke of Obama, who’s viewed as mired in a fruitless search for bipartisan accord while the economy burns. (Somebody give the guy a fiddle). He has started to show the signs of fight, but he’s very late to the struggle.
But the protests are also a shot across the bow of a Republican Party seen by the demonstrators — and others, the polls say — as the tool of the same corporate crowd that exports jobs, corrupts Congress with carloads of cash and manipulates the tax code for its own advantage.
The Wall Street banks, though hardly the only villains and maybe not the worst, are a made-to-order symbol for the economic mischief that brought the country to this sorry state. They collapsed the economy in reckless, close-to-criminal practices that involved sale of investment instruments so worthless, some banks even bet against their own products.
When the crash came, they rushed to Washington to beg for government help. Remember Henry Paulson, the Bush treasury secretary, on bended knee begging Nancy Pelosi for bailout bucks? Once saved, these ingrates invested millions on lobbyists to fend off federal regulation. Gratitude is not part of a banker’s DNA.
No one rationally opposes bank profitability; without adequate profit, they’d be unable to supply the credit essential to a market economy. But by the eve of the 2008 crash, bank profits had exploded, according to Simon Johnson, former economist for the International Monetary Fund — from 16 percent of all corporate profits to 41 percent by the mid-1990s, while pay for top executives had almost doubled.
Corporate greed isn’t confined to the banks, as the Institute for Policy Studies notes in its examination of something called, innocently enough, WIN America.
WIN America is a corporate campaign for a “tax holiday” on profits earned abroad — money, it argues, which, if brought home at a reduced tax rate, would create jobs here. Sounds good, until checked against the history of the last corporate “tax holiday” in 2004.
It cost the treasury $92 billion, the IPS contends, and instead of creating jobs, 58 of the corporate winners “shed almost 600,000 jobs after their tax holiday tax break.” Who’d have guessed?
The Wall Street protests are welcome events, a Howard Beale-type cry that “we’re mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” After all, this is the Year of the Common Man; even the Arabs are in revolt.
But what the demonstrators want — an end to the perversion of our politics by big money — is a cure that can’t be made any time soon, and certainly not by just reining in the banks and corporations.
The root of the problem is the U.S. Supreme Court. In a truly stupefying decision, it opened wide the floodgates to political money by ruling that money has free speech rights in politics — almost no holds barred — and that corporations are individuals. Only a change in the court can cure that malady.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_john_farmer/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_protestors.htmlBy John Farmer/The Star-Ledger (shout out for JanforGore and all you Jersey folks)... more
-
-
October 16th, join with farmers to stand up against agribusiness and Monsanto. Stand up to preserve the seed and the biodiversity of our planet. Stand up for real food and food sovereignty.
The Sustainable Agriculture Group will be commemorating that day with action as well as coverage all day October 16th, exposing the lies of Monsanto and their move to patent and own all seed.
More information to come.
October is also NON -GMO Month. Look for information on going NON GMO and other features all of this month on the Sustainable Agriculture Group ( see tag. )October 16th, join with farmers to stand up against agribusiness and Monsanto. Stand... more
-
-
When Roberts and his merry band of judges, were deciding the fate of America in the Citizens United v. FEC case,
{{{{{Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.}}}}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
I felt as though it would never come to pass; Corporations to be treated as though they were people, how could this be? Every media outlet that I had viewed said it was very likely to be a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Corporations. NO WAY! I still refused to believe that the 5 accomplished Supreme Court judges could ever vote against The People even with bearing in mind, that they were of the "Conservative Persuasion".
(In my opinion, a system of beliefs, that advocate, Flesh and Blood People insignificant when making laws).
Live and learn, that’s what happened to me on January 21, 2010 because it DID COME TO PASS and now we are dangerously close to an election that could be decided by Corporations, even ones overseas like BP.
Today, after receiving this email, I thought I would try to do a small part in undoing such an ignorant law, by blogging it around. My efforts will have seemed worth it even if only one person takes action to tell these 5 Roberts' judges that they were in the wrong and "We The People" must make it right by forcing a constitutional amendment.
Please read more about it HERE http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/CitUPoll-PFAW.pdf .... And while you’re at it visit MOVE TO AMEND http://movetoamend.org/ ....
Thank you,thinkingblue
Two important reads:
1. Money Grubbers - The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform.
http://www.slate.com/id/2242209
2. Does The Roberts Court Favor Corporations Over Ordinary Citizens?
http://themoderatevoice.com/71250/does-the-roberts-court-favor-corporations-over-ordinary-citizens/
CLICK FOR PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY
http://site.pfaw.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=16061&em_id=13841.0
Dear People For Supporter,
An important new poll commissioned by People For the American Way shows that Americans of every political stripe resoundingly reject the Roberts Court's dangerous decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which opened the floodgates of unlimited corporate cash in our elections.
We should have a government of, by and for the people. The polling results show increasing concern among Americans that, in part because of the Court's decision, which equates corporations with people, we are becoming a government of, by and for the corporations. The poll also shows broad awareness that when corporations spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections, it infringes on the rights of the rest of us by drowning out the voices of the average citizen.
The Court's decision in Citizens United was so disastrous that voters overwhelmingly support a constitutional amendment to correct it.
Three-quarters of voters said that they support a constitutional amendment to limit the amount that corporations can spend in elections. A similar majority are more inclined to support a candidate who has spoken out in favor of an amendment. This support cuts across party and ideology, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in support of the measure.
Leading up to Election Day, People For the American Way, along with Public Citizen and other allies, will be asking congressional candidates to pledge to support a constitutional amendment, and sharing that information with voters.
Here are some of the polling specifics:
* 85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today while 93% say that average citizens have too little influence.
* 95% agree that "Corporations spend money on politics mainly to buy influence in government and elect people who are favorable to their financial interests." (74% strongly agree)
* 85% disagree that "Corporations should be able to spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of elections because the Constitution protects freedom of speech." (63% strongly disagree)
* 93% agree that "There should be clear limits on how much money corporations can spend to influence the outcome of an election." (74% strongly agree)
* 77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount U.S. corporations can spend to influence elections.
* 74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a constitutional amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.
You can read more about the poll here. (PDF) http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/CitUPoll-PFAW.pdf
Thank you for your continued support of PFAW's campaign to restore Government By the People.
-- Ben Betz, Online Communications ManagerWhen Roberts and his merry band of judges, were deciding the fate of America in the... more
-
-
Citizens United offers videos: Rediscovering God in America 2-Our Hertitage; Hilary; HYPE-The Obama Effect; ACLU-At War With America; Gingrich-Rediscovering God In America
About Citizens United
Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.
American Sovereignty Project
American Sovereignty Project ("ASP") is the grassroots lobbying arm of Citizens United that works to protect American sovereignty and security. ASP's major objectives include complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-controlled International Criminal Court, and rejection of one-world government.
FORMER PRESS RELEASE
Citizens United to Sue CNN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 4, 2007
Dan Wilsondwilson@sbpublicaffairs.com703.739.5920
Washington, D.C. — Citizens United and its president, David Bossie, today issued the following statement:
“Citizens United (CU), and its President David Bossie, have retained counsel to pursue claims against CNN for reporting in a November 28th CNN show called Broken Government – ‘Campaign Killers,’ hosted by Campbell Brown, that David Bossie and CU were part of a ‘fringe militia.’ CU through counsel will seek a formal apology and public retraction of those statements, and for calling Bossie a ‘dirty trickster.’ If no retraction is forthcoming, CU will then bring legal action to hold CNN accountable for these and other misrepresented facts. These baseless allegations were a disservice to CU and its 500,000 members, CNN and its audience, and to general principles of responsible, fact-based journalism.”
Posted by David N. Bossie
at 4:23 PM
http://www.citizensunited.org/Citizens United offers videos: Rediscovering God in America 2-Our Hertitage; Hilary;... more
-
-
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We are a group that moves to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
http://movetoamend.org/On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election... more
-
-
The Supreme Court is set to rule soon on a case that will determine whether corporate entities can donate their entire treasuries to campaigns, including elections for Congress and even the office of president itself. All indications are that the Court will rule in favor of such a plan.
In the past, Congress has rebuked a corporation’s ability to donate to electoral campaigns, believing that it gave too much power to companies wanting to influence members of Congress or the executive branch. Teddy Roosevelt himself believed that affording such rights to private entities would be disastrous, saying, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”
But starting at a time even before Teddy spoke on the subject, eventually evolving through the 1980s era of deregulation, several court interpretations have bestowed upon these companies the privilege of “corporate personhood.” In other words, in the eyes of the U.S. judicial system, corporations are viewed as persons, given the same rights that individuals carry, including free speech rights.
And since the courts have traditionally ruled that money donated to campaigns constitutes a form of free speech, it may also rule in favor of corporations being allowed to donate to campaigns as well.
The Supreme Court will pass judgment within a few days on Citizens United v. FEC, likely ruling in favor of granting corporate interests the right to donate sizable sums of money to politicians, political parties, and campaigns. Such a ruling would undoubtedly change how we see politics play out for years to come.
rest of article after jump:
http://www.dane101.com/current/2010/01/20/walker_dont_let_the_surpreme_court_turn_america_into_a_corporatocracy
more links to look at:
http://movetoamend.org/about-us
http://ultimatecivics.com/
http://duhc.org/corporateRule.htmlThe Supreme Court is set to rule soon on a case that will determine whether corporate... more
-
-
Last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a “provocative comment” that probed the foundations of corporate law. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involves whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers.
The court’s majority conservatives agreed that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that “recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.” However, Sotomayor disagreed, and said the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights as real, live people.
Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons,” she said. “There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with…[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.”
Corporations have been claiming personhood in order to protect their profits from undue strain under regulations or fair taxation ever since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886, a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties.
At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads the right to deduct the amount of their debts (mortgages) from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals. Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes under these new changes. The taxpaying railroads challenged this law, based on a conflicting federal statute of 1866 which gave them privileges inconsistent with state taxation. Basically, Big Railroad, one of the largest corporations in the United States at the time, didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes, so the corporation claimed personhood.
The case is most notable for the statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. As Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, “the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions…Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives.”
Of course, corporations are not people. They don’t vote. They don’t breathe the polluted air some of their industries help to create. They have no children to drink the poisoned water they pump from their factories. Now that citizens see the toll deregulation has taken (tainted environment, outsourced jobs, and widening class divide, including a desperate underclass ruled by a tiny coterie of fat cat CEOs and bailed out financial institutions,) Sotomayor’s statement doesn’t seem as controversial as it may have a decade ago.
As tame as her remarks may have been, she still managed to scare the crap out of Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the (surprise) conservative Heritage Foundation. ”[I]t “doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that she respects the corporate form and the type of rights that it should be afforded.”
Corporate form, in this case, means corporate personhood. It means protecting corporations from accountability and fair taxation. Corporate form, in Gaziano’s world, means “business as usual.”
One can’t predict the remainder of Sotomayor’s judgments from this one statement, but if this is the beginning of a trend, Justice Sotomayor should be applauded for her bold, fresh thinking. Now, more than ever, the United States needs a Justice who understand that corporations have been getting a free ride, and it’s time they pay their fair share.Last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a “provocative comment” that... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
