Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Corporations Versus Democracy
The most important issue to young people in the 2008 campaign is one that no presidential candidate will discuss. In fact, even touching on this subject is taboo for anyone with aspirations to Congress or the White House. Anyone who has the temerity to mention this political third rail will almost certainly lose the campaign.
The issue is the curtailing of corporate power, and as long as corporations continue to finance major candidates, it will remain unspoken. No one running for office wants to be blacklisted by corporate lobbyists in Washington.
That's a shame, because this issue is connected to almost every other problem facing America today. As long as corporations have no incentive to avoid polluting, we will continue to poison this planet at an alarming rate, and as long as corporate lobbyists hold an inordinate amount of influence in Washington, there will be no substantive solutions to problems like income inequality or our woefully inadequate healthcare system.
The unchecked power of American corporations does not just affect America, either. It is our corporations that are exploiting developing nations by employing their people at low wages in inhuman working conditions. The environment, obviously, is a global issue. And while some may scoff at the idea of the United States waging war for economic reasons, it is difficult to ignore the mounting evidence that we invaded Iraq, at least in part, to bring profit to American oil companies and defense contractors. What country is next? Iran?
If presidential candidates were willing to treat unchecked corporate power as an actual problem, we might be able to begin considering solutions. At a start, the regulations already in place to curtail corporate power could be enforced again.
More drastic measures need to be taken as well. I would start by changing the legal definition of a corporation. Currently, a corporation is legally defined as a human being, and therefore it possesses all the liberties that go along with being a member of the human race.
That definition is clearly absurd--a corporation is little more than a profit-making machine formed by a loose collective of human beings. It is not entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other amendment of the Constitution for that matter.
Public financing of campaigns is also a central part of reducing corporate power in America. While public financing's detractors argue that it is fundamentally undemocratic, it will in fact bring America closer to the democratic ideal we purport to hold so dear.
There is much about the current campaign model that is fundamentally undemocratic, but nowhere is that more true than in the field of campaign finance. It is virtually impossible to run for Congress or the White House without becoming a corporate-sponsored candidate, and corporate-sponsored candidates act more on behalf of the corporations that pay to put them in office than the actual human beings that vote for them.
Public campaign finance will fix this by leveling the playing field and ensuring that candidates are selected based on their ability to present their case, not how much money they can raise from GE or Bechtel.
Additional regulation on corporations is also a must. While this includes environmental statutes, something that nobody seems to be discussing is how to regulate corporate America's human rights abuses abroad. In other words, if Nike is abusing workers in Indonesia, what can we in the United States do to make sure that ceases?
One possible solution is economic sanctions against our own corporations. America is a massive market, and many of the worst violators of human rights are based here, although their factories may be abroad. Why not close off the American market to these companies unless they adhere to some sort of international human rights standard?
One could argue that we have a moral obligation to do something like this, but it is not entirely without its own material rewards. This is a national security issue--to many developing nations, these corporations are the face of the United States, and the more people they abuse around the world, the worse the international perception of us becomes and the more potential terrorists and anti-American sentiment we breed.
In a campaign that is more about fundraising than real issues, unchecked corporate power is the elephant in the room. We cannot rely on the candidates to raise the issue--rather, we must raise awareness among Americans in the hopes that they will force the candidates to acknowledge this central problem in our democracy.
Ned Resnikoff is a freshman at New York University. He wrote this essay while a senior at Middletown High School in Middletown, Connecticut. Resnikoff is one of five finalists in The Nation's 2007 Student Writing Contest. Read more about the competition on StudentNation.com.
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
60 Comments so far
Show AllLeave it to a high school kid to get it right. Maybe there is hope for the future. I am very proud of you, Ned.
Now if we could get the liberal phonies @ The Nation, to get it right, that would be something
This is all sensible stuff, but for the past decade, The Nation has given pitifully little coverage to grassroots groups that focus on uprooting corporate personhood and challenging plutocracy (Public Campaign is one exception). If The Nation editors actually care about such changes, they need to take a little bit of space from the endless coverage of candidates and elections to fill readers in on the real work progressives must do.
I hope they'll soon be highlighting the work of groups like the New Rules Project, Reclaim Democracy and the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy and leading people to support folks that recognize the need to focus decades ahead, not on which corporate-approved candidates are elected to office.
Ending corporate personhood is clearly a necessity if democracy is to endure. However, like so many other important issues, it's difficult to know what to do about it. Once again, the only solution I can think of is to buy locally, cultivate your own garden, and restrict purchases of corporate products. All of this is, of course, easier said than done.
If only the power of We the People can control corporate power, why not exercise it with binding public referendums? (See Mike Gravel's National Initiative for more info on this) This is something we can do right away that takes the pressure off Dem pols. All we have to do is convince recalcitrant pols afraid of becoming obsolete, to introduce these referenda right away.
Abraham Lincoln (in a statement made in 1864) recognized the threat that corporations posed to the Republic and that such corporations had unleashed a wave of corruption in government
I want to see all politicans wearing jumpsuits like race car drivers with the logos of all of their corporate sponsors on them. Instead of 'Hail to the Chief', when the president enters the room, the theme songs of his corporate sponsors should be played. The speaker of the house can introduce the president with the following: 'I am pleased to introduce the president of the United States proudly brought to you by Blackwater, Haliburton and Bechtel, et al.' If we can't stop corporate funding, at least we should have the right to know who is paying them.
Ralph Nader continually addresses the corporate menace. Ralph Nader has done more for working class America during the past forty years than all 43 of the presidents combined. The fact that he gets only one to three per cent of the vote is indicative of a very sick nation that can no longer label itself a democracy.
Right On, LeeAnnG
I eschew Anything Corporate to the extent I can. That Includes the MSM, Anything WalMart; I use as few Utilities as I can, Garden, Walk & Bike - I hate buying Fuel Oil, but I keep the Temp at 50 - sweaters are nice. There is plenty we can do. Don't give Em your $$$$ any more than Absolutely Necessary!
normvincent,
And I believe what is most important is that we never work for a corporation and do our best to convince those we love to avoid such employment as well.
jakenewton, I draw the Line at BIG, BAD, and Multi-National
I have never understood the judicial fiction of corporations being legal persons -- this fiction got traction in the 1890s, by the way.
Until then, broadly speaking, coporations were limited in the time they could be incorporated. As it is now, they are not only powerful, they are, assuming they can acquire sustenance and avoid being consumed by another corporation, immortal.
Does the disain for corporations include Mom and Pop shops that are incorporated? Where would you draw the line?
Outside being Drafted into the Imperial NAVY of the Corporate States of America, I have never, nor would I ever work for a Corporation.
A huge step, I believe, would be to pass a stringent, no-frills Campaign Fianace Law--so that corporations could no longer "own" our politicians!
That would be a radical change!
Jake Newton,
This is not, as you attmept to reframe it, about some sort of emotional issue - "disdain for corporations" including "Mom and Pop shops".
This is about the absurd legal construct that publicly chartered corporations are "persons" with constitutional rights of natural persons.
This absurd legal doctrine was not invented in some bizarre fit of misunderstanding - this absurd legal doctrine of "corporate personhood" was invented in order to promote the ever-increasing political, economic and social power of financial and economic elites over "We the People".
Instead of your persistent pro-corporate interventions in the public comment area of Common Dreams, perhaps you might spend some time investigating the actual legal history of the creation and development of "corporate personhood". The Program on Corporations Law and Democracy (POCLAD) has done extensive research and documentation. (You might even look up the reasons why "corporatism" is a synonym for fascism.)
i doubt you will expose your narrow world view to these documented historical developments. Rave on!
"This is not, as you attmept to reframe it, about some sort of emotional issue"
Does this mean you aren't going to answer my question?
"Instead of your persistent pro-corporate interventions"
You are "projecting".
So let's start with public campaign financing and reverse court decisions that have granted corporations the benefits, but not the responsibilities of citizenship / personhood. Nice, but not enough.
Let's also eliminate the profit motive from health care, and other forms of insurance. Plus (and this really labels me a communist) how about these for governmental reform:
1) Free and equal time for campaigning start one month before an election on television and radio channels, plus in newspapers and magazines. Consider it their fee for freedom of the press, if you will.
2) No more (un)elected-for-life government folk. One term as a Representative, One as a Senator, and one for President / Vice-President. Plus, how about a strict nine to twelve year term limit for the Supreme Court, and once you have served in an Presidentially appointed position, that is it. The present system has given us Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others since the days of Nixon.
In other words, no more revolving door Military-Industrial-Government complex that runs this country into the ground.
I say let corporations be "persons". Let them be subject to capital punishment just as people are in many states.
http://pwp.surfglobal.net/butterfield/CapitalPunishmentForCorporations.html
The real problem is judges that don't want to enforce the law.
ED IN COLORADO: A satire for our times, well said!
"Let's also eliminate the profit motive from health care"
Does this include the development of new treatments?
"I have never, nor would I ever work for a Corporation."
Strictly sole proprietorships and partnerships, right? No wiggle room for even *teeny tiny* incorporated businesses?
Hey y'all I think the purpose of posting this article lies in the fact that it was a student that wrote it. Followed the link below the article far enough to learn that Ned Resnikoff was a senior in HS when he wrote it. That is encouraging - the real truth of current affairs is apparent even to our consumerized descendents.
Nothing new in the article to those that have watched the rise of corporate humanity for most of our lives.
It is encouraging though.
Doris "Granny D" Haddock is 94 and running against incumbent Judd Gregg.
Doris's platform is campaign finance reform. At 90 she walked across the country to raise awareness about campaign reform. She could sure use some financial support. We're looking for a landslide!
This evening she will be at the Colonial Theater in Keene, NH.
Corporations have had an effect on foreign and domestic policy for a long time. We do not elect the board members nor the corporate officers, but many times they have more influence than our elected representatives in Congress. This is something to consider the next time you go to the voting booth.
One other thing while your doing something useful, put a cap on inheritance. There are way to many very wealthy and very stupid people with way to many really smart people around them maneuvering their wealth through their life. These people who manage the wealth of the stupid are the real causes of economic problems or at least a big chunk of it.
Ed in Colorado. Best idea yet, in fact I'm surprised that the corporations don't demand it. They certainly make sure their logos and credits appear on everything else they touch.
Man I would LOVE to see those jumpsuits. Something tells me they could all be pretty much the same.
Beautiful ideas, but they won't work as long as rich people have enough money to control election campaigns and elections, all three branches of government at all levels, education and the mainstream media, etc.. As someone said long ago, even the most liberal capitalist democracy is still the dictatorship of the rich ruling class. We need to make a basic rule of our society that anyone who wants to get filthy rich, should be looked om, and treated, the same way as someone who wants to sexually molest little kids. But you won't be able to get that by using the fake system of our so-called democracy.
Read Naomi Klien's latest book ... The Shock Doctrine.
The major thesis of the book is how the corporations use various crisis to push through 'reforms' that make them richer. Of course, in a true democracy, these reforms, that also hurt the vast majority of the citizens, would never have a chance. So the corporations and the economists have developed the technique of using a crisis to push these through while everyone else is focusing on just survival.
New Orleans is an example. Look at the way they are changing the city and keeping the people who lived there from coming home so they can redevelop the land how they want it. Many other examples in the book stretching back to Pinochet in Chile in the early 70's.
But the key point is that corporations have no interest in democracy and try to subvert democracy whenever they can in order to make more money.
PS ... the Nation can occaisionally do some good stuff in the non-election years. But by this time next year the Nation will be in pure 'suck up to the Democrats' mode and will only be highlighting Dem campaign issues and attacking all who dare to suggest that voting Dem is as much a waste of time as voting Rethug.
I ran across the transcipts of an old speech of FDR on October 31, 1936
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism and war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -and I welcome their hatred"
Well said FDR. Too bad the political leaders today are not so welcoming of their hatred and are happy to be a corporate appendage.
Once there was this theory - big corporations would be socially conscious because their families and friends all play in the same environment as "we" do, seeing as how there's only one and all.
A sure sign of terminal Greed Spongiform Encephalopathy (GSE) is the inability to understand your choices and behavior are killing everyone closest to you simply for a few more dollars.
@jakenewton
"Let's also eliminate the profit motive from health care"
Does this include the development of new treatments?
No, it does not, as most new treatments are researched on the public dole at universities, then farmed out to the pharmaceutical and medical manufacturing companies.
Have you noticed that the "ownership society" has had devastating consequences, that "ownership" is fraught with harm and parasites on a person's time, energies, wallet? Think about it. Buy a house and suddenly, a homeowner "owes" the bank, insurance companies, power company, phone company, assessors, tax collectors....on and on it goes. It seems that a person winds up working for all these companies! Then there's the furnishings, cars, gizmos, doodads, what not's... Think about all the natural resources used for this overblown (and promoted) sense of entitlement while big banks and corporations rake it in. This system is not sustainable and we're all complicit. What about the "happiness quotient?" Are we happy? "You can't ever get enough of what you don't need." www.simpleliving.net/main/ and solari.com
"No, it does not, as most new treatments are researched on the public dole at universities, then farmed out to the pharmaceutical and medical manufacturing companies."
Thanks for your response. Source?
right on ned.
i think the corporations deserved to be tried for treason.
maybe that's a little dramatic for many.
how about sued for damages - stripped dry.
monopolies broken.
public floggings.
i knew that earth day was totally fucked when the corporations started funding it.
I have an artificial heart valve developed by a charity hospital. I take warfarin developed by the University of Wisconsin as a rat poison at the taxpayers expense. I don't know the history of the other drugs I take but I bet the basic research was at taxpayer expense.
Also drug companies spend much more on advertising and political contributions than drug research.
Corporations should have NO rights they do not have an ass to kick nor a soul to save.
Corporation tee shirt
Stupid bloody Tuesday
Man you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allen Poe
I am the eggman
They are the eggmen
I am the walrus
While you put a little cream in your coffee, put a little democracy in your corporation. For what it's worth, David John Gawron proposes the idea of constitutional corporations with investor representation to create a few more divisions of power (with checks and balances to each), within the corporate governing body that would apply some investor (including those who purchase the corporate products) control to the economic and social policies of corporations ("economic nation-states").
http://www.goldenrulepatriot.com/id17.html
We know that the politicians and corporations are handing goodies back and forth to each other with no thought of the consequences, but is it likely that either group will kill the goose that laid the golden egg? Don`t hold your breath for that to take place, as greed has gotten a strangle hold on America, and we now have our "unitary executive" to see that everything goes according to plan. We also have the "decider" and "commander in chief",
so the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, endless war for profit, and more tax cutting and debt for the kids to pay off. There is an obvious solution , and that is to become a politition or a CEO and grab some easy money.
jakenewton, as per your query about large and small corporations, what's the difference?
Try this analogy.
The "mom and pops" court their customers, romance them if you will, while the big guys act like they can fuck anyone they want, and do.
That help?
jakenewton, I don't think it's fair to say that webwalk "disdains" corporations. To disdain soemthing means to look down on it. The use of that word makes it sound like webwalk is just being snobby and thus makes it sound as though you must not have a valid point to make yourself, only a subtle bit of derision.
I think it's fair to say that webwalk dislikes corporations and has valid reasons for feeling that way.
Or maybe it's even more fair to say that webwalk objects to the actions of many corporations.
I also think it's extremely obvious that we are talking about huge corporations here, not "mom and pop" type places.
My guess is that you yourself own a small incorporated company or know someone who does and you felt personally insulted by what webwalk said. If that is the case, I think you would have been much more effective if you had just said so and explained why you felt that way.
"The most important issue to young people in the 2008 campaign is one that no presidential candidate will discuss...The issue is the curtailing of corporate power..." Where do you find such young people?
The truth is they are walking billboards with corporate logos all over them. My Dad would never advertise unless he was on the payroll. Kids today identify with corporations. It is true they have too much money and power. The money needs to be taken from them through taxes so they pay for the defense, the courts, roads, regulatory work, etc.. Taxes have been cut so often that money is accumulating and with it power. Cororations should be forced to pay a welfare tax too. With rights comes responsibility. Today corps. do not contribute to society they only take. We could end homelessness that way something we all could be proud of.
It is not JUST corporate sponsorship of politicians that is at the heart of the problem. The other major part of the problem is corporate ownership of the media.
Unless the media is broken into some sort of collective ownership, we will continue to have minds of voters controlled by the elite. Only convenient truths will continue to be presented and outright lies and distortions fed to us whenever they have an agenda.
US democracy worked well for a while, but now it is broken. I dont see how it can ever be fixed.
"I think it's fair to say that webwalk dislikes corporations and has valid reasons for feeling that way."
"Or maybe it's even more fair to say that webwalk objects to the actions of many corporations."
Fine, and I wish to understand why.
"I also think it's extremely obvious that we are talking about huge corporations here, not "mom and pop" type places."
It's not "extremely obvious" to me, but I do appreciate the apparent spirit in advancing understanding. The dislike, contempt, disdain, or whatever word you like for corporations is a common theme here and is not often expressed with much nuance, hence my question. I'd refer as an example to a comment by someone stating simply that they would never work for a corporation.
So it's the behemoth that is regarded with suspicion, and not the details of incorporation itself. I had thought this was true but wanted to be sure.
"My guess is that you yourself own a small incorporated company or know someone who does and you felt personally insulted by what webwalk said. If that is the case, I think you would have been much more effective if you had just said so and explained why you felt that way."
No, it was I think the size vs. incorporation issue, at the time I asked. Myself, I currently work for a corporation in the health care industry, but I have been a sole proprietor as a contractor to the same industry.
I appreciate your response, and I think we might agree on a number of practical problems we currently have with some large corporations. However, I think the various contributions of large corporations are undeniable.
"The "mom and pops" court their customers, romance them if you will, while the big guys act like they can fuck anyone they want, and do."
Both are capitalists, and I know first hand of certain Mom and Pops that would like to fuck the customer as much as anyone.
"That help?"
It sure does, your characterization reflects IMO a gross oversimplification that is too common, and it lowers my expectations.
"Corporations should have NO rights"
Are you serious? I'd be interested in hearing your case to support that.
This post is open questions to anyone who can point to answers.
Given that incorporation laws are state laws, does anybody know how many corporations are doing business in all the United States? Is there an ongoing total census? Consolidated records of "births" and "deaths"?
Given the rush to LLCs of the past two decades, is our population of corporations growing faster than our population of people?
Given that our last two Supreme Court nominees (Alito and Roberts) are corporate guys to the core and that they tilted the court more to the "corporate" than to the "conservative", can we hope to reign them in with superseding legislation at the federal level? (A long shot for sure, but is there any other hope on this at all? Since individual states pass laws to compete with each other to see who can "birth" the most corporations?)
Could progressives get it done through Democrats? Once upon a time, we mounted a "New Deal" using Democrats. Anybody at this site willing to support another one?
"is our population of corporations growing faster than our population of people?"
Just riffing here, but I wonder if you would have to do some weighting within the corporate count somehow to make a comparison to the people count meaningful.
jakenewton, "your charaterization reflects IMO a gross oversimplification that is too common, and it lowers my expectations."
Obviously I was being flippant and not intending a serious analysis. Since you work for a corporation AND are a sole proprietor why don't YOU offer an analysis and enlighten the rest of us.
"why don't YOU offer an analysis and enlighten the rest of us."
Mine may not be so great. I would only say generally that when people look at the "evils" of corporations, they may do better to find the *person or persons* within said corporation that are directly responsible. Otherwise, you let those individuals off the hook. You can only conduct a perp walk with a person, as with the convictions of ex Enron execs for example.
jakenewton
If you are seeking understanding on the subject,you might want to check out www.thomhartmann.com for a detailed
presentation of how the role of corporations went wrong.
I think we have to be careful about saying all of anything (except the Bush administration ;-) ) is bad.
I am sure there are some corporations that do good.And some that do some good and some bad, etc.....
Okay, now I'm going to expose some of my ignorance- is a corporation any company that is incorporated? People incorporate their company so that if their company gets sued their own personal money can not be touched, right? In that case I would think most companies must be incorporated. And it would be awfully hard to avoid working for one of them!Too hard for me anyway. It's so hard to find a job that's a good fit without adding that to the mix!
I think the problem with corporations is more of a problem with the way business is done in general. It's amoral. Empathy and morals are not supposed to be part of the equation the way we do things now!