National coordinated campaign unites to revoke corporate "constitutional rights"

[marmar]

National coordinated campaign unites to revoke corporate "constitutional rights"
Last updated December 30, 2009


ReclaimDemocracy.org and a broad alliance of grassroots pro-democracy groups are preparing to make 2010 a breakthrough year for the Democracy Movement. To accomplish this, we're building the broadest coalition yet to confront and revoke runaway corporate power. The focus: amending the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Court-created notion of applying constitutional rights to corporations.

While we have been calling for this action for almost the entire decade of our existence, we now find the idea reaching a "tipping point" among many other organizations.

A Teachable Moment

The Campaign to Legalize Democracy will debut publicly the day the U.S. Supreme Court announces a ruling in the potential landmark case, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Despite enormous anger over public subsidies, systematic credit card rip-offs, and more, it's widely expected the Court will give corporations even greater power over our government by allowing company funds to be spent in efforts to elect or defeat political candidates. If this happens, we will work quickly to channel anger where it needs to go: overruling the Court.

And after campaigning to bring “change” to Americans that included public health insurance and taking on Wall Street, President Obama and Congress have demonstrated they either are unwilling or unable to challenge the power of pharmaceutical, insurance, and financial corporations to correct our nation's most urgent problems.

We don't celebrate this failure, but we recognize the opportunity created by this disillusionment. When people believe in illusions, they are not receptive to confronting reality. One year ago, millions of Americans believed democracy could thrive and some of our worst crises improve if we elected Barack Obama and shifted control of Congress. That illusion is dead, but its demise gives birth to great opportunity.

We provoked debate over corporate "free speech" and personhood in dozens of media outlets that never had previously explored the issue when the Nike v Kasky case reached the Supreme Court. This time, however, we'll have a broad alliance amplifying the message, with a collective reach many times greater than ReclaimDemocracy.org alone.

Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling (the second week of January is the next potential time for a ruling), we'll post news on the new campaign, as will a dozen or more organizational partners.When we do, we'll be looking to our readers to also jump into action with a barrage of calls to talk radio shows, letters to the editor of your local news outlets or favorite web outlets, and more. Stay tuned!


http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/campaign_amend.php

[marmar]

1. Kicked for the magnitude of this issue.....

:kick:

[BeFree]

24. I see that kick and give it an R

[theFrankFactor]

29. Probably The Single Most Important Issue!!

[jimlup]

2. K&R

:kick:

[ck4829]

3. K&R

[dgibby]

4. Thanks for posting this.

I could certainly get behind this, as well as campaign finance reform. Without progress in these two areas, I see no hope of ever recaiming the country for "We the People".

K&R!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[destes]

108. "Reclaiming" (however spelled)may be a misnomer

CLAIMING the country for the people as opposed to business interests is a distinction the founding fathers, in their haste to have consensus, failed to make. That's why the constitutional hole the supreme court repeatedly barges through existed in the first place.

I make this point because I think it is important that we understand our position clearly. Taking our government not only means taking it back from the forces that corrupt it but reforming the original as well. Because of our historic pro-business ham-handedness the US has an extremely spotty record regarding human rights, the dignity of man and basic trustworthiness in its international relations with the other peoples of the world. These days, the general acquiescence to that sort of policy may be due to a marked absence of perspective, an immersion in mis-information in this "information age". It ain't for nothin' that we have, as a society, been dumbed down.

[lunatica]

5. .

[L0oniX]

6. K & R

[defendandprotect]

7. Thank you . .. didn't know about this . . . but I think Vermont had

an opportunity fairly recently to overturn corporate rights and they didn't do it?

Puzzling!

:)

[Silent3]

8. Incorporation should be taken as a bargain struck between the public...

...and a private interest. The public should be demanding a lot more for itself, considering what corporations get out of the deal.

[Trillo]

9. Reclaimdemocracy.org's online website taught me

more than any school ever did about U.S. history, and much more quickly.

For that I'm grateful.

[Larry Ogg]

113. And what do they teach about the deceitful and criminal history of our monetary system?

I.e. the Federal Reserve and the history of banks; somehow I don’t think the PTB is going to stand idly by, as the working class pressures law makers to make war on the “Corporate” nightmare that was spawned by the world banksters.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. Thomas Jefferson.

In other words, the corporations are symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself…

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Go Baby!

[truth2power]

11. Good! I'll sign onto that. I've been promoting this for a long time...

The corporation/personhood issue MUST be revisited. I am not a lawyer, but surely, there are legal issues with the ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that you could drive a truck through.

Starting with, as I understand it, that the personhood idea arose from the notation of some clerk, and was not actually a part of the decision. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[elleng]

12. Seems clear (and easy) to me.

I doubt that a con'l amendment will be necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[Cowpunk]

103. With the Supreme Court we have today? I beg to differ. NT

[elleng]

117. LEGALLY clear, imo.

As to a particular Court, one can't say.

Surprised that Mr. Justice Douglas approved the approach. Ms. Justice Sotomayor has questioned it.

[scentopine]

13. Money/time better spent than on DNC DCCC DSCC candidates

We need a funding and volunteer shift away from establishment candidates and more towards efforts like this. These organizations can keep us energized. Establishment candidates are proving to be a disappointment given all the work and cash spent.

[pundaint]

39. Exactly, Support People First!

[djp2]

14. About time!!!

K&R!!

[Overseas]

15. K&R. Yes please!

We've spent too much time pretending that a corporation, comprised of ownership from various countries, with more than one individual at the helm, deserves equal rights to any single U.S. citizen.

I hope that some of the right wing xenophobia can also be employed in the struggle to defeat that governing supposition. After all, some of those Corporate Conglomerate Superpersons have foreign ownership. But with the most right wing of our broadcast news channels being a foreign owned conglomerate (or has Murdoch become a US citizen?), we may not hear the super right wingers slamming that issue.

I like the website "Reclaim Democracy" too. It has great resources on this topic.

If our president and our Democratic majorities manage to stand tall on undoing the governing myth of corporate "free speech" (aka bribery) rights, I will be delighted. It would make up for a lot of the seeming capitulation to other false premises like the wisdom of the "free" (aka wealth-dominated) market.

[dotymed]

16. Please,

Count me in.

[alberg]

17. K & R!

[bpcmxr]

18. Thanks so much for this, marmar!

As usual, your posts are gold. Happy 2010!

[marmar]

19. Happy 2010 bpcmxr.......Thank you.

:toast:

[timtom]

20. K&R!!

Muy importante!

[Vidar]

21. K&R.

[Krashkopf]

22. It is THE Biggest Issue . . . But, won't it be too late AFTER Citizens United?

If the Corporatist Supreme Court rules that MONEY = FREE SPEECH, won't the ONLY way of undoing it be to AMEND the Consitution?

[marmar]

23. Seems like that's what this campaign is expecting and planning for.

nt

[Krashkopf]

25. Yep . . . clicking the link would have been a good thing!

K&R to the topic.

Corporate personhood is the root of most of America's problems today.

[pattmarty]

26. If this is done and coordinated right it could work. And how it could............

.............is to get EVERYBODY behind this. This is an issue for conservatives AND liberals.

[penndragon69]

27. Off with their heads!

[Qutzupalotl]

28. Off with their tentacles.

[DailyGrind51]

30. Nothing, not healthcare reform, not workers' free choice, not carbon emission restrictions, will

become reality without overturning corporate person-hood.

[Blue State Bandit]

31. K-N-R

[Union Yes]

32. KNR x 1000! nt

[WillyT]

33. K & R !!!

:kick:

[pa28]

34. Kicked. This issue is has got to be the #1 before real change is possible.

Let's stay up to date on this effort. Sounds like there is more to come in January.

[NBachers]

35. This Is The Big One

And my right-wing, Obama-hating Republican friend at work will be able to jump on this one, too. I've been able to create a common-ground dialog with him over corporate rape, education, American decline, and public servants who are owned by the corporations, not the people.

It goes beyond the democrat / republican division. And it's the very reason the corporate-owned media and government is keeping us at each other's throats.

This is their nightmare. This is where I put my support.

[truedelphi]

96. Same here. Those of us who are in the trenches need to

become allies (wherever possible) as the middle and lower incomed are not each other's worst nightmare.

[DKRC]

36. K&R

:kick:

[santamargarita]

37. K&R

:kick:

[immoderate]

38. Corporations have the rights and protections of people...

without the conscience. Their only motivation is greed and they are immune to sickness and death. The decisions are shielded from redress. This is not a good recipe. :(

--imm

[Enthusiast]

80. Yeah, it's pretty much a

recipe for the disaster we are witnessing.

A corporation should have to demonstrate an interest in the 'public good' or cease to exist. That would be a good place to start right there.

[immoderate]

106. I like your direction.

I think you'll have to get more specific. People on every side of the health care issue all claim to be working for the public good. So then it comes down to votes -- and power.

Profit corporations are the opposite of the public good. It's like telling lions to be kind to vegetarians.

--imm

[Greyskye]

40. Single biggest issue out there.

Corporations are not people. Giving them that fiction is destroying the very concept we call democracy.

[LouKneeLib]

41. A pipe dream.....

I'm sure this effort is well funded! lol (yeah right)

[marmar]

57. I guess you won't be joining in then?.....Don't let the doorknob hit you.....

:yoiks:

[LouKneeLib]

58. Uh huh

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea at all. But I also don't believe in unicorns.

We can't even pass a halfway decent health care bill, yet you think we have the political and financial capital to do this??? The removal of corporate citizenship? Sell it to Disney, because I am not buying it. We don't have the political will for health care reform, yet the coffee shop revolutionaries are going to pull something off of this magnitude?

We will have to take the training wheels off before we can accomplish such a feat.

[marmar]

59. "coffee shop revolutionaries"

You spoke volumes with that phrase. Enjoy your stay at DU, however long it lasts.

[LouKneeLib]

61. Uh huh

As if that isn't an appropriate label in this rare case.

That organization can't even create a respectable looking website, yet you seem to believe such a political victory is even a remote possibility. Their website looks like it was created in 1995 - mighty fishy. I think it would be wise to see some 501(c) documentation before anyone gets involved.

Goodluck with the likes of the banking industry, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Retail, etc.

[YvonneCa]

77. Welcome to DU. n/t

[Enthusiast]

81. Okay, we will just continue down the path

of ruin. Glad you injected some sense into the discussion.

[burning rain]

42. If the Court's decision be ill, low-income conservatives will celebrate the expanded "right"...

of corporations to fuck them over. Morons.

K & R for fine, useful stuff.

[rd_kent]

43. Giant KICK! A must read for all!

[benld74]

44. Hey SCOTUS, Corporations ARE NOT HUMANS with RIGHTS

They are entities created by greedy humans who dont seem to get enough otherwise and want to control everything.

[kimmerspixelated]

45. This is so Important! Thanks for posting.

I plan to donate and have urged a family member to also get involved.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

46. Freedom or Serfdom, that is the question. K & R and bookmarking

THIS is the real fight.

[Edweird]

47. I can definitely get behind this.

[secondwind]

48. I'm with all of you on this......what can we do to help?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

49. K&R

If they are "humans" or "citizens", shouldn't they die at the national average of life expectancy ?

[Maineman]

50. Yes! I'm in!

Very important. Corporations are not persons, they are legal structures. They are words on paper, not persons.

[Joe Bacon]

51. KICK

If Courts say that Corporations are "Artificial Persons" under the law, then these "Artificial People" should be seized by the Government when they commit crimes!

[azul]

52. Maybe the time has finally come:

SHOULD NOT THE 14th AMENDMENT TO THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

BE AMENDED?

An Address to the Gary, Indiana, Bar Association

November 20th, 1936 by Edward T. Lee, Dean of The John Marshall Law School Chicago

****

Joint Resolution presented to the U. S. House and Senate by Edward T. Lee:

"ARTICLE _______________________"

"SECTION 1. The provisions of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be held to apply only to natural persons and not to corporate or other artificial persons created by law…."

www.wilpf.org/issues/ccp/corp/III/III-read2.htm

[azul]

93. edit the address

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:weCUKaow2dIJ:www.wilpf.org/docs/ccp/corp/III-read2%255B1%255D.doc.pdf

[SalviaBlue]

53. k & r

[hulka38]

54. I think that if you're going to market something you'd better frame it

in a way that suits your position best. Instead of saying you're out to take away corporate Constitutional rights, say that corporations should not be recognized as a person any longer and never should have been in the first place. I think people can relate to that in a common sensical way. It sounds more principled too.

[Canuckistanian]

55. It's about time corporations were made second-class citizens

Instead of absolute equals.

That kind of disenfranchisement I heartily endorse.

[liberation]

60. Corporations are not absolute equals, under the current system we are second-class citizens

when comparing ourselves to the crap that corporate personhood allows them to get away with.

The whole concept of an abstract entity like a corporation been granted personhood status... and how it was accepted, it sort of boggles the mind when you really think about it.

[abelenkpe]

56. k & r

[AllyCat]

62. I'm game! Thanks for the link! k/r

[RedCloud]

63. And then off with their heads!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

64. this, media and education

the three things that shape who we are as people, I think.

(I'm thinking of corporate control of politics, legislation, and media... don't really have a clearly thought out comment though. a lot of social factors, but how we discern good from bad, right from wrong, and how we face and think about complexity all go back to media/advertising and education influences. And since mercenary corporates currently control these institutions.... well....)

[BrklynLiberal]

65. hiphiphooray!! Where do I sign up!!!???

[winyanstaz]

66. k & r.....about time too :)

This is great news.

[Angry Dragon]

67. kick and rec

[DissedByBush]

68. You have to go deeper

Destroy the concept of corporate personhood and everything including constitutional rights goes with it.

[mirrera]

69. K&R

[Faryn Balyncd]

70. This is a major issue. K and R. Thanks for posting.

[bluesmail]

71. Definitely a K&R x's a million.

[hay rick]

72. k&r

[pleah]

73. K&R

[HuckleB]

74. K & R.

[puebloknot]

75. MUST READ: Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection," addresses ...

... this issue, and he says that this was *not* a court-created notion, but that a clerk wrote in the headers of the bill that it passed when it actually did not.

It's been some time since I read his book, but that's what I recall.

In any case, legitimate or not from a legal standpoint, corporate personhood exists. This is a worthy cause -- something we can actually support which would have a major impact on this nation, by helping to end corporate dominance.

Thanks for this post.

[Canuckistanian]

89. Yup. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

And who was J.C. Bancroft Davies? The former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[puebloknot]

101. Thanks for this. My book is in storage, so I was relying on memory.

"We are all of the opinion that ..." seems to apply to a lot of things these days. Forget the rule of law; let's move on!

[denbot]

76. Alley and I just had a conversation concerning this on the ride home.

We were speaking of taking up a worthy cause, this was the one we felt if solved would be most fruitful.

[bluestateboomer]

78. K&R

[Enthusiast]

79. This is a movement I could

get behind!

[donheld]

91. +4 million

[rumpel]

82. Absolutely support

k&r

[Enthusiast]

83. How about corporations

must demonstrate good will toward the community where they market their product. You know, provide jobs when moving them to a third world country would be more profitable. Why can't we demand that our corporations are good citizens?

If 'real' citizens act against the interests of the community they are imprisoned. Why not corporations?

[Odin2005]

84. K&R

[Enthusiast]

85. Why don't we expect corporations

to be good citizens? Why? It should be the job of every elected office to legislate the pure certainty that corporations will be good citizens or be taxed out of existence.

Corporations should ALWAYS be subservient to the people!

[me b zola]

86. K&R!

[Alcibiades]

87. Two main problems with corporations in the US

The first is that they are legally bound to pursue profit for shareholders without any consideration of any other stakeholders, or society.

The second is that, unlike humans, corporations have no natural limits. I have my own physical limitations in terms of how much I can know, do, etc., but the most important limitation is that I will die. Corporations do not, and many who ought to die are not allowed to. The founding generation understood this well: early US corporations were limited in scope and served public purposes. In any money game, if you make one set of players immortal, then eventually they will own everything and the mortal players will own nothing.

[OneBlueSky]

112. a third major problem is that . . .

because of the first two, they (the corporations) essentially own the government -- legislative, executive, and judiciary . . . the notion of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" has evolved into "government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations" . . . and since corporations are legally bound to pursue profits at the expense of everything else, virtually every major problem facing this nation and the planet can be traced directly back to mega-corps that do exactly that -- pursue profits at the expense of the environment, the economy, the health and well being of the citizenry, and the possibility of nations and peoples living at peace and in cooperation with one another . . .

all I can say about this campaign is "YES, YES, YES, YES, YES . . . ad infinitum" . . . finally, an initiative that actually attacks the problems at their root -- which is the only way they will ever get solved, or even seriously addressed . . . this campaign is something everyone should get behind and support with whatever resources they can contribute, financial or otherwise . . .

at long last, a reason for hope! . . . major kudos to Reclaim Democracy for taking the initiative and staarting to build what we can only hope will turn into a massive grassroots movement that will scare the bejesus out of the power brokers in government and in industry who are responsible for the ungodly mess we find ourselves in . . . when there's an island of plastic the size of a continent floating in the Pacific Ocean (to cite but one example among millions), the time for serious action by the people and for the people is way, way, way past due . . . and by "the people" I don't mean just American people, but all of the people and peoples with whom we share this once beautiful planet . . .

[kitp]

88. Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

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... a creature of state law with human characteristics."

WSJ Article

[bertman]

90. A good first step in the right direction. Rec. nt

[Oldtimeralso]

92. K & R and proud to help the cause n/t

[ClayZ]

94. K and R

[Hekate]

95. KnR to reclaim democracy from the corporatocracy

[ooglymoogly]

97. This is the only thing we can do to bring our democracy back

from the brink. kr

[laughingliberal]

98. Really like this link on their website

Reports on Sotomayor's statement during the recent oral arguments in the Citizens United case. She questioned if the courts have had it wrong all this time. Also interesting is to see Rehnquist was not a huge fan, at least in one case, of the expanded rights of corporations.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/sotomayor_citizens_united.php

[SteveM]

99. Thanks for the post. Since the "corporation-as-individual" ruling...

was based on the 14th Amendment, how does this group plan on framing an amendment which would not interfere with the provision of the 14th, esp. the parts defining a U.S. citizen, and preventing states from infringing the privileges and immunities of citizens? Are there any slips twixt the cup and the lip which would short-circuit these provisions? The 14th was used heavily throughout the last half of the 20th century in pro-civil rights court decisions, and formed a strong foundation for the various civil rights acts in the 60s.

[fasttense]

107. Thom Hartmann frequently states that it is a simple fix.

Just put the word "Natural" in front of the word persons. That would then prevent entities like corporations, robots and computers from declaring they should have the same rights as citizens.

But think about it, this crazy idea that corporations should have the rights of a person. How can they be jailed when they murder people? You know when their toxic wastes and poisoned laced foods kill off someone accidentally. If you and I had done that we would be charged with murder, or reckless disregard for human safety. But corporations merely pay out a little money and continue to on their destructive path. Gee, I wish I could pay a little money and get out of a murder rap.

This organization at the link seems to be just a fledgling group now. I think I will donate and see if they would be interested in organizing a month long protest.

[anonymous171]

100. K&R. nt

[Cowpunk]

102. Wow, they read my friggin' mind!

This is a letter I wrote last month to my local paper:

Why do countries like France, Japan, and Italy spend far less per capita on health care than the United States, yet achieve universal coverage and better results overall? This is due to the exorbitant influence which corporations that profit from our current dysfunction hold over America's legislative bodies, preventing any meaningful health reform.

The "aristocracy of our monied corporations" has gone far beyond what worried Thomas Jefferson in 1816. Companies don't just defy our laws, their lobbyists now write them with the help of legislators bought off with massive campaign contributions.

Until we recognize that personal rights have been wrongly attributed to corporations, and restrict their influence on electoral and legislative processes, reform that reflects the needs of our citizens will remain a pipe dream. Given the current slant of the U.S. Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment may be the only way citizens can take back our government.

[Goldstein1984]

104. Outstanding!

This is where political contributions that once supported candidates should be going.

I'll be following this one closely, doing whatever I can to help.

[on point]

105. FInesse the Issue - Contributions from Registered Voters Only!

One way to help resolve the money issue is that we should limit contributions to a candidate to only registered voters. Since corps can't vote, they can't contribute. They can still run public relations campaigns to preserve their rights, but these should be tracked and made public. In any case, candidates would have to rely on voters for funding.

[midnight]

109. K&R

[Norrin Radd]

110. kr

[Raster]

111. Kicked and Highly Recommended!

There will NEVER be meaningful change in this country unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to overturn the Court-created constitutional rights of corporations.

[ClassWarrior]

114. K

NGU.

[Festivito]

115. Country's already taken over, they no longer need it, sure, we can take it back.

It's a good thing to do. Won't end our coming demise, but, better to go down doing good things.

[ClassWarrior]

116. Another "give up lefties, you're doomed" post.

Yes, let's all grovel before the awesome power of our corporate overlords.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Festivito]

118. Wrong. I say it's a good thing to do, and not give up, and not we're doomed.

There are bigger things that are not being addressed.

BTW, in making your post you manage to paint lefties, plural, as giving up, which would be pretty good work if one were a RW troll. But, I'll take it as just a bad day for now. Good weekend. Three party nights in a row.

[aaronbav]

119. Kicked!!