Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Monday, February 1, 2010 by Bill Moyers Journal
Free Speech for Corporation: What Does the Citizens United v. FEC Decision Mean for You and for Democracy?
Bill Moyers Journal explores what the Supreme Court's decision means for campaign finance reform and the future of our democracy with legal experts Monica Youn, of the Brennan Center for Law and Justice at NYU School of Law and Zephyr Teachout, of Fordham University's School of Law.
© 2010 Bill Moyers Journal
Comments are closed
13 Comments so far
Show AllI've heard this decision characterized as the worst by the Supreme Court since Dred Scott (by Keith Olbermann I believe?). This is clearly a corporate move to establish as "fact" what has been already been assumed in practice: that corporations are people and that money is speech. The only move left for the defense of human self-government is for states to revoke all corporate charters.
The states had best move quickly, before the corporations can revoke, or rather reassign the individual state's charters....
Hit them were it hurts most: boycott their corporate garbage including cars and start using public transportation, bikes, rideshares, car pools, put your money in a credit union, grow your own organic food, insulate your house, retrofit to solar, stop buying the latest designer cloths and use resale shops, submit your resignation to your corporate handlers/jobs and take up your passion (what you once dreamed about before you sold out) or stop paying homage to the Man by sniffing his arse. Learn about sustainable life styles, organic farming, and downsize to reduce their frigging control of your life.
1. You've advocating boycotting those that have done no maleficence as yet.
2. Where are you getting these solar panels and insulation from? - corporations.
3. Car pools use gasoline... - corporations again, and the cars themselves.
4. Credit unions ARE corporations.
I totally support your premise, that we need to reduce our energy footprints and downsize and I respect the passion you've attached to your message, but patience, thoughtful discussion, and observation are required first I believe. THIS decision, may re-shape the dynamics of a lot of our lives. Allies may re-think policy positions they've had in the past believing they now have a new weapon and no longer need the 'grassroots' support. Adversaries may swap sides, believeing that size matters and they'd be better off fighting with a progressive group to overturn the decision rather than be swallowed by larger, more politically active corporations.... who knows.
Ah, that's the pickle we're in, eh? That we've built a long-distance economy that relies on ever-growing corporations to enable us to survive.
The most optimistic view of the Citizens United decision that I've heard is that it's not that big a deal -- because how much worse can it get?
We face some hard choices ahead. The reasons to find ways to avoid purchasing from big corporate entities go far beyond their growing political clout. We've created an economic ship that is not sustainable or desirable, and it's these large corporate entities -- and their marketing departments -- that are steering the ship.
Oh, I certainly agree. I believe we first must remove corporate "personhood" and then move to reduce the size of any corporation on company so that it CAN fail without a domino effect to bring down any government. I'd also like to see corporations be limited to the boundries of the state in which they incorporate and not be given carte blanche once they've given money to Deleware.
One of the major problems, especially with international corporations, is that by the wording of the NAFTA, and GATT, these corporations have a "RIGHT to profit" under the investment clause. Of course, those just skimming the words would so, yeah, so what. But the 'right to profit' far exceeds the 'right to TRY to make a profit'. It is this type wording, dicatated by corporations to begin with that brings us to this precipice. Well meaning law makers seek 'expert advice' from these entities when forming legislation and don't recognize the pit falls that are inherent with the wording.
This decision may or may not cause the cascade effect of public activism. What is happening to our food supply and our medical system is, in my opinion, criminal. Soon it will become illegal to give out information as to the effects that herbs or homeopathic remidies that have been used for ages. We are already being forced to accept GMOs and then being told we can not save seed. The "terminator gene" is barbaric at best, possibly life ending at worst. There HAS to be a public outcry soon, or corporate profit will mutate into corporate ownership of individuals... just my opinion...
Does this decision also remove political restrictions from 503C organizations?
A radical shift in values to reflect what's toxic and what's sustainable is all that's needed to disempower those whose wealth is based in poisons.
Organic agricultural economics will replace chemical economics when our species chooses sustainability and peace over war and extinction.
Non-humans controlling the government of humans.
Perhaps Alito might be induced to explain how it's "not true", or, in light of the outcry and the famous dictum that the SCt reads the newspapers, a Petition for Reconsideration might be granted.
It seems an opportunity for Obama to pull an FDR and push for new (bi-partisan) legislation providing for election reform.
I think it's clearly the worst decision since Dred Scot, and violated numerous SCt traditions. The decision was made on a distinct issue not really presented to the court. The word 'corporation' does not appear in the Constitution, and these 5 "strict constructionists" have turned a fiction into substantive precedent, and should be ridden out of town on a rail.
Being incapable of getting pregnant, or of causing pregnancy, I expect Exxon's opinion on abortion to be about as well-thought-out as my opinion on digging oil out of the ground. But the 5 majority of the Supreme Court probably doesn't care, since being incapable of getting pregnant, or of causing pregnancy, never stopped THEM from having an opinion on abortion...
I've said before: this ruling is a grave danger to our capitalism, as to our democracy. Capitalism is supposed to work by having ideas compete in an open marketplace of ideas. Indeed, the role of gov't in such marketplaces (all marketplaces, in fact) is to FORCE BY LAW the market to be 'open' (otherwise, powerful business forces try to close it: the better to rip off the 'little guy', which is so much easier than working for a living). This ruling allows OLD ideas to make NEW ideas illegal. OLD ideas (like oil or tobacco) that were once popular often have lots of money; but NEW ideas (like renewables or marijuana) often don't have lots of money because their appeal is still new. They aren't popular yet, but they could be. This ruling allows OLD ideas to infect government and pass laws closing NEW ideas off from their potential markets. It is thus a profound threat to our capitalism (which was already suffering from corporate graft of governance). As such, I can't see how this ruling would be popular with either liberals who care about democracy, or conservatives who care about capitalism. There's nothing 'free' about opening up a market with a new idea, and then finding your powerful competition is, behind closed doors, rigging the government against you. I can't see how conservatives would find such a prospect at all in line with their concept of business 'freedom'.
Keep corporations away from governance. It saves democracy for real people, and saves capitalism for corporations, especially corporations with new ideas.
Litmus test for ALL Congressional candidates in 2010:
Will you work to repeal "corporate personhood"? Yes or no.
Nearly everything else hinges on the continued existence of this anti-democracy, unconstitutional legal abdurdity from 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad: assumed in court notes, NOT EVEN IN THE ACTUAL DECISION, the unchallenged assertion that "corporations are persons"), further magnified in 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo: "money equals speech") and 2010 (Citizens United v. FEC: corporations, unions and other organizations, having the same free speech rights as human persons, cannot be limited in spending on poltical ads).
Any candidates who cannot commit to repealing this odious claim are not qualified for office because they are implicitly stating they will NOT uphold our Constitution, which was NEVER written to guarantee human rights to corporations.
In this conversation it is vital to remember that corporations are run by people---a very tiny minority of demographically homogenous people who are the officers and directors. This is the top 1% that controls 80%(+/-) of the wealth of this country. They can now play politics “with other people’s money”.
It is to this tiny minority that the SCOTUS has bestowed super-human "rights".
That is fact.
This is opinion:
By the time these people float to the top of a corporate heirarchy, they are quite likely to present the familiar signs of psychopathology generally attributed to "corporations". (Or it may be that they float up BECAUSE of those characteristics.)
Logically so. And downright scary.
The patients are running the asylum.
CORP IS BORG.
The traitors 9 at the top of the "United Stazi of America"s
system of laws are all marching lock step to allow the Fascist
Corporate take Over of America.
This take over is supported by Neocons and Right Wing
Christians Lunatics that were given power by Bush/Cheney with
the Faith based initiative programs and Homeland Security.
As we speak , the FBI,FEMA and Homeland Security recruit
community watch programs into the Fusion Centers network of
Stazi spys all protected by Supreme court warrant less
surveillance and immunity from prosecution.
All of it well know by the Attorney General and the
Department of Justice.
HAIL HAIL THE NEW CONSTITUTION, THE PATRIOT ACTS AND CORPORATE CONTROL.
GOOD BY AMERICA, THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS, POLICE SHERRIFS, STATE OFFICIALS, EVERYONE TIED AT THE HIP THAT BELIEVE AMERICA MUST GIVE UP CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PROTECT US FROM TERRORISTS....
HAVE NOW ALLOWED DOMESTIC TERRORISTS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY.