Corporate Zombies Are Eating Our Democracy

The issue of corporate “personhood” has come to the fore again, due to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, handed down on January 21st.

But even some corporations didn’t like the ruling. Dozens of current and former corporate executives from corporations including Delta, Playboy Enterprises, Ben & Jerry’s, Seagram’s, Hasbro, Delta Airlines, Men’s Wearhouse and Crate & Barrel sent a letter to Congress asking it to immediately pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which would publicly finance all congressional campaigns out of a special fund created by a fee levied on TV broadcasters. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers and now it will get worse.

Of course, these smaller corporations are not the ones who will be doing most of the new spending anyway. It’ll be the mega-corporations, the ones that have been buying legislation through campaign contributions and their swarms of lobbyists on Capitol Hill for some time now. It’s just that now there will be no limits on their so-called “speech.”

The concept of “corporate personhood” grew out of a Supreme Court case decided in 1886, San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. However, it was just a note by the court reporter that somehow miraculously bestowed this status on corporations. J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote for the court: “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.”

Justice Hugo Black (who served on the Court from 1937-1971) wrote, “In 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word ‘person’ in the amendment did in some instances include corporations...The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments...The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations.”

During the Court’s deliberations in this most recent decision, freshly appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong, and that the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights as flesh-and-blood people. Judges “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.”

Clearly, it is a flawed precedent. And instead of compounding the error by wiping out a hundred years of other precedent that at least put some limits on corporate spending in political campaigns, the Court should have corrected the original mistake, as Sotomayor suggested.

Congress is debating a new bill that aims to counter the Court’s decision, but by most accounts – and like everything Congress does these days pertaining to corporate power – it is much too weak.

Surely, the future of democracy itself in the USA is at stake. Until we can take the big money out of politics, our elected officials will continue to serve the entities that provide them with the money to run big, expensive campaigns, instead of the people. Corporate spending should not be protected as free speech, for it is just the opposite – the practice smothers the real free speech of actual citizens, rendering our views seemingly irrelevant.

This is HUGE! Finally, a challenge to the 'personhood' of corporations in the Supreme Court!!!

On August 1st Democracy Unlimited filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging “corporate personhood,” the illegitimate and undemocratic legal doctrine which allows courts to overturn democratically elected laws that attempt to control corporate harm and abuse...

“The notion that corporations have the same speech rights as people under our Bill of Rights is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” said Clements. “The organizations that joined to bring these arguments to the Court have worked with others for many years to empower democratic self-government. They remind us that corporations do not vote, speak, or act as people do, but are products of government policy to achieve economic and charitable ends. As such, corporations need not be allowed to influence our elections if Congress and State governments judge that such influence is detrimental to democracy.”

The Supreme Court is considering overturning federal campaign regulations for corporations, originally enacted in 1907, and may soon overrule previous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the Constitutionality of legislative restrictions on corporate money in politics...

The brief filed by Democracy Unlimited argues that corporations are legal entities created by state or federal law for economic, charitable or other purposes, and were never intended to be included within the Constitution’s Bill of Rights...

More details and a long discussion thread at Reddit.

The Supreme Court will be hearing the case in September. Expect to hear more about this then, but you can get a head start now.

Demonstrations at offices of major banks Thursday nationwide!

Tomorrow, Thursday, March 19, 2009, Americans in cities nationwide will hold demonstrations at the offices of major banks and other corporations to demand more responsible corporate behavior and call on Congress to enact the change that will make it happen. Employee free choice and health care reform will also be issues that are emphasized. Click here for info on some cities where demonstrations are planned.

A populist sentiment is rising once again in America, and that's a good thing. For various reasons, we've been far too complacent for far too long. Now's the time to take advantage of the popular anger over the economic shenanigans of corporate thieves on Wall Street and all over the world -- we need real, systemic changes, NOW -- and this is the best opportunity in years to make it happen.

Let's get out on the street for some good ol' fashioned protests. Get your poster boards, magic markers and paint out, meet your neighbors and raise some hell!

Patriotism

We just celebrated Independence Day in the U.S., and everywhere people are debating what "patriotism" really means. As both major presidential candidates continue jabbing at each other on the subject, I was very touched by an article by Chris Satullo in the Philadelphia Inquirer titled "A not-so-glorious Fourth" – it may be a little after the fact, but I hope everyone reads it, as the message goes beyond the holiday itself.

Our great nation seems to be crumbling around us these days – morally as well as financially. Morally, as this administration has abandoned our high ideals and squandered our standing in the world by engaging in barbaric torture and pillaging our Constitution – all with the compliant approval of most of the media and Congress. As Mr. Satullo explains, we, the public, share in the blame as well, since we have not expressed sufficient outrage at these developments.

Financially, things are going downhill fast as well, but the case can be made that this was caused by our moral failings as well. Not because God is punishing us for our sins, but because there is a direct correlation between not playing by the rules and the long-term fallout that that causes. Financial institutions have been allowed to skirt the rules laid down after the Great Depression. And those rules have now been rewritten to accommodate the corporate behemoths that have grown so powerful, Congress seems to be their own private puppet theater. They pull the strings, and bought-and-paid-for politicians do their bidding.

Things must change, and fast, if we are to preserve this still-young democracy. And perhaps it starts with redefining "patriotism."