Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
If You Think Corporations Run The Government Now…
Then just wait and see what happens after, as expected, the Supreme Court allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of their favored candidates:
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may let businesses and unions spend freely to help their favored candidates in time for next year's elections. Such a step could roll back a century of attempts to restrain the power of corporate treasuries in American politics.The justices cut short their summer recess for a lively special argument that indicated the court's conservative skeptics of campaign finance laws have the upper hand over its liberals, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the high court's swing vote, but a firm opponent of many campaign restrictions, at one point told the government's lawyer, "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election."
To a certain extent, it is hard to even conceptualize why this matters. To paraphrase Dick Durbin, powerful moneyed interests already run the government. From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, check out the gains made by of wealthy interests over the past 30-35 years:
There are the glorious results of bi-partisan, moderate-approved economic policy for you.
Through vast lobbying, astroturf, media and legal efforts that dwarf anything progressives have created, powerful moneyed interests in this country have been able largely to control legislation even after 30-year peak in Democratic electoral success. A ruling like this will simply be the icing on the cake.
47 Comments so far
Show AllThe democratic experment is over. Nothing short of a revolution will restore it.
I am afraid you may be correct.
Redballoon: You are right....see my posting below
Actually, whatever real "of, by and for the people" democracy may once have existed has been over for quite a while now. The fact is just getting more obvious. What you're noticing is decreasing corporate interest in sustaining an expensive illusion and increasing confidence that it's no longer essential as a popular control mechanism.
It has become quite clear during the past several years that the vast majority of the U.S. peasantry will not only accept any lie as an excuse for any outrage with no repercussions whatever, they'll actually fight and die in foreign lands to advance the interests of the liars. And even most "radicals" who don't buy all the "patriotic" propaganda are too intent on being "good citizens" and conforming to the established "rules of the game" to rebel against anything.
But don't worry. The next election will fix everything -- NOT!
"What you're noticing is decreasing corporate interest in sustaining an expensive illusion and increasing confidence that it's no longer essential as a popular control mechanism."
Ouch! Sadly, I fear you are spot on.
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, pull back the curtains, move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
- Frank Zappa
Good example is the current national dialog on healthcare. Hmmm, what position is routinely censored in both Washington and on the corporate controlled airwaves? Name that solution that must remain nameless.
Another good example is the Obama-Emanuel administration itself. Name the corporate conglomerate that owns a major piece of television that worked so hard to defeat one candidate and install another. Hint: they have already benefited mightily in bailouts and even have a horse in healthcare. Another hint: the FEC did not count their 24-7 television support as a campaign contribution.
Corporations, who have all of the benefits of being citizens but none of the downside, i.e., they don't go to jail, never die, and never cease their activities due to bankruptcy, enjoy all the benefits that used to be ours: representative government, the right to be heard and have grievances redressed. As someone said on here about SINGLE PAYER a few days ago, "THEY ARRESTED OUR LOBBYISTS!"
Anyone think the Supreme Court will make a distinction between the freedom to speak and bribery? Anyone concerned that freedom of the press belongs to those rich enough to own one? Will the finest legal minds in the country consider that the top 1% own more than just the speech of the 99% ?
I'm sorry to say, your right redballown. Once Corps. are allowed to spend openly to BUY Congress up front the seal will be on the deal. We will be living in an Imperial Fascist State. The elites always hated democracy from day 1 and have strove mightily for 200 yrs. to destroy it whenever possible. The Civil War was not just about slavery it was also a class war. The north became increasingly aware that a State built on Slave labor could never be truly democratic. Today the problem is that Corps. have acquired the rights of people. As people these entities are immensely powerful. They are in fact truly giants that can crush anyone in their way except other Corps. Those of us without Corp. protection then become nothing more then ants trying to stay out of the way of an increasingly warlike clash of titanic Corps.
But let's not forget, many people here voted for Obama primarily because he would make better choices for the supreme court(written while stiffling a belly laugh!)
Did you know that Sotomayor was on the Republicans' short list for the job as well? Apparently no leftwingers are qualified.
jlocke123: No, I had not heard that SS was on a Republican short-list for the Court nomination, but it does not surprise me. What has surprised and shocked me ever since her confirmation hearings began is the deafening silence from almost all corners as to what her political disposition might be, especially with reference to the degree of corporate-friendly and presidential-friendly quality in those views. With the Court perilously balanced on a 5-4 "liberal" disposition, the appointment of a similarly liberal Justice to replace Souter was vital to that balance. With A. Kennedy playing the role formerly played by Sandra Day O'Connor in being the usual "swing" voter apparently ready to swing rightward on the Clinton case, I should have thought that decent news coverage of yesterday's hearing would have devoted no attention to what SS was wearing and every possible attention to her every word and rise of her eyebrow for "signals" as to whether her membership in the Court heralds an official demise of democracy as it becomes an indisputable corporatocracy.
Jerry, with Justice Stevens' retirement expected next year (because he has only hired one law clerk instead of the customary four), we will bid farewell to the last liberal on the Court. There's no way that Obama will appoint someone of Stevens' liberal bent to take his place. The appointee will be a "centrist" like Sotomayor, and it will be one more nail in the coffin for this country.
anne faith: I'm afraid you're right about Obama's next Court appointment. Does anyone remember how, during the last presidential campaign, when one even thought of voting for a third party candidate, he/she was met with scolding for political irresponsibility which would result in Obama's defeat and (horrors!) would you want John McCain to appoint the next three or so Justices? How many potential Nader or McKinney votes were pulled away from that scam (as it turned out)? And was it worth it to empower the disastrous Obama domestic and foreign policies?
"...icing on the cake"?
No. It will be dirt on the grave.
Again: http://ni4d.us/
The root of the insanity of ever-increasing corporate power over our political system lies in the absurd legal fiction of "corporate personhood", which gives the same right of free speech to corporations as our Bill of Rights does to human beings.
This legal fiction, based wholly on a mistaken summary by a court reporter of an 1886 Supreme Court case, has destroyed democracy.
The legal way to overturn all this absurdity is to directly challenge the notion of "corporate personhood":
American Independent Business Alliance www.amiba.net
Campaign Legal Center www.camlc.org
Demos www.demos.org
POCLAD www.poclad.org
Public Citizen www.citizen.org
Reclaim democracy www.reclaimdemocracy.org
It's only bribery when small-timers or working people do it. Free speech has been measured in dollars for so long, no one thinks the cyclone-fenced "free speech zones" are a big deal.
A supreme court justice can be impeached just like a president! The founding fathers would not have put impeachment into the constitution if they did not intend for us to use it. It was the recorder of the supreme court that started all this back in 1867 with a fraudulant header in the federal register. Now the five wackos on this court are going to seal for good what J.C. Bancroft Davis did in 1867.
The supreme court back in 1867 ruled against the Union Pacific Rail Road, but Mr. Davis entered in the header of the court ruling that the court had decided that corporations had the same rights as natural people (a complete fraud)but all the courts since have accepted this fraud as precedent. There is a movement in congress now to right this wrong. But of course we will have to brow beat our elected representatives to get anything done. GOOD LUCK!
Actually the fraudulent "ruling" was in 1886. See Thom Hartmann's account at http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/221/46916.html
WE THE CORPORATIONS have killed the U.S. CITIZEN.
There are no more CITIZENS there are only CONSUMERS.
CITIZENS are now POLITICAL TERRORISTS as they are
against America Coporate interests which is a threat
to the state and UN-AMERICAN.
Welcome to unbridled Corporatocracy.
Authoritarian Rule is following closely behind.
I have a difficult time even considering the possibility that anyone could care less what the US Supreme court decides.
In 1836 Andrew Jackson proved that the US Supreme Court has no enforcement power in his statement "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it " (Marshall was chief justice)
The Supreme Court has no enforcement power.
If the people of the USA wish to make any real changes they have if nothing been shown beyond a doubt that they live in a Plutocratic Oligarchy; they can either change that or not.
If they continue to labor under the illusion that they live in a Democracy, they are simply slaves to the 'PO'----and will hand that as an inheritance to their children.
They might wish to make any changes as soon as possible, when the rest of the world realizes that the USA will not 'govern itself in a civilized manner'; they will step in and make the changes needed to 'make themselves safer'. Then the people of the USA will be the slaves of another 'PO', imported from 'abroad'. After all slaves usually make an easy transition from one owner to another; much like bovine or other 'beasts'. There is ample evidence that the 'PO' in control of the USA has as others have in the past, over stepped itself. "Misanticipated themselves",( a sort quote from 'one' of the 'smart ones' who helped create the current problems) and now they are in some deep
trouble. Now the world has 'got to make an example' of the USA--after all is it not a 'globalization' that the USA wanted? Even the USA can't have it both ways.
I know I know, 'Americans are fighters not slaves'---but the 'fighters' are the ones they will 'kill off' first; that will make the 'followers'---just 'follow another lead'.
Evidence is abundant that most Americans are simply 'followers'. They would not be in such trouble if they were truly 'free people'.
"If the USA were another nation, the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
Good Luck America-------
I posted these remarks on a similar article.
Any roll back of existing restrictions on corporate campaign expenditures by the U.S. Supreme Court, .....a vote "against real human beings and their democracy", .....should be the final straw that breaks the camel's back after all that has happened these past two years, .........and an AMERICAN REVOLUTION BEGINS.
Every Common Dreams reader should read an article written by Sara Robinson, "When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps to Revolution". This was carried by CD on February 22, 2008.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/22/7241
Thank you Chris Bowers for these remarkable graphs.
I am compelled to add these thoughts. In the past 20 years of class warfare waged by the rich against the average working American, when corporations took all the profits from increases in productivity, leaving no share of profits for the workers,...... how in heavens name did the wealthy ruling capitalists plan on getting away with this without avoiding a national recession?
By deliberately enticing the average American to survive on increased spending by way of further credit card debt and borrowing on the increased value of their homes. The wealthy elite knew what they were doing. It was their usual strategy of short term goals.
But the rich are blind with greed, they ignored the long term possibilities of a national financial collapse. Now we have it and have bailed out the greedy basards.
Yes, it is time for a new national conversation made possible by massive civil dissobedience and non-violent action in the streets. But is there enough of the radical few to do so?
A lot of them had no illusions about recession.
They just figured to make their money while the market roared and lay low while it started to twist and whimper.
Loss to them? Sure, some of them, quite a bit. But when the companies go under, those execs just hoist their resumes on to the next corporation. It's workers, homeowners, teachers, children, and the poor who get hit hard.
They do not find the loss to be grave unless the social order gets reversed or weakened. They are still in charge, respected businessmen, and they may treat those who do the actual work of mutual care as minions.
If they're not already doing it, they will soon be writing about the "scare" of 2008 through whenever, when "a downturn made people think the market did not work."
Thats true. A lot of these people think of it as riding a wave, a wave created by their own pooled greed. Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone) wrote about this (re Goldman Sachs as the great American bubble machine). The idea is that some finance companies have so much money behind them and which they influence that they can literally CREATE bubbles by identifying the 'next big thing', getting in early, spreading the rumours around to first their well-connected friends, then the common investor, and then shorting the bubble at its peak. Taibbi argues convincingly that Goldman Sachs did just this first with the dotcom bubble and later with the housing bubble. Since approximately $8 trillion was lost when EACH of these bubbles popped, companies like Goldman Sachs come out very rich indeed for what is essentially a temporal ponzi scheme. If the gov't has to inflate the currency to combat the fallout from such behavior, that doesn't matter, since inflation primarily hits wage-earners. Relative wealth is what matters to these people, not absolute wealth.
Sadly, left civil disobedience is represented in rightwing media as 'return to socialism' in increasingly strident terms. I think the left has to be patient and let the anger build, and continue to struggle to inform the public of how, exactly, they got turned into third world citizens. Graphs such as the above help. There's no question that we are in one of those epic moments when grassroots struggle is needed to overturn decades of greed (like the progressives during the Gilded Age). This is no easy matter. And, sometimes, setbacks in a small, still developing leftward movement can kill real change for years, as 'defeat' is seen by so many 'competitive' Americans as the ultimate commentary on the justice of the lefts ideas.
Stephen V. Riley,
I think you are on target. However, I am quite certain that this has been anticipated by those in power. I think they know what's coming probably better than we do. There are lessons to be learned by the preemptive arrests of the demonstrators at the Republican National Convention. They have the technology and the impetus to identify each of the troublemakers, and to dispatch them accordingly. We would be quite naive in not recognizing that this rebellion will be suppressed in an entirely unique and brutal manner. The thought process must now turn to logistics. Never before in human history have the citizens been up against such a well-funded, high tech, desensitized and brainwashed army and police force. All I'm saying is that we have to be realistic. They're playing for keeps.
Wayout: I really believe the greatest of power of the human spirit for civil disobedience comes from those who have nothing to lose because they are no longer owned by the system. Only then does consciousness and truth drive us on because we are free to think these great thoughts and act. That is why radical social change is always left to the courageous few who are free.
Jim Shea
Every day the power of the military/industrial complex grows. Every day the power of corporations and the rich grows. Every day fundamentalist religion becomes more powerful. Every day the partnership among government, corporations, the military and the religious right gets stronger. In other words, every day we get closer to being a fully fascist country.
Every day we get closer? At what point of corporate control over our daily lives and even our indoctrinated preceptions do we admit to ourselves that we're actually there? And what, if anything, do we do about it then?
If we THINK corporations run the government?!!! What in the name of all that's holy could be more blatantly obvious? They not only run the government, they control virtually every aspect of human society and existence.
That's by no means a "radical" view, BTW. All recent polling, including a 2005 Harris poll, shows that a whopping 90% of Americans surveyed believe big business has too much power and influence.
With such a large preponderance of agreement and common ground one would expect some kind of popular demand for redress of the problem backed up by whatever collective action might be required. Unfortunately, USA Incorported is much more skillful in dividing its popular opposition than the American populace is in enforcing its common wants, needs and wishes. For that matter, the former are so influential they can even persuade the populace to provide repeated "democratic" endorsements for the public office candidates they annoint and purchase.
Greatest Democracy on Earth? Ya better believe it, pilgrim!
It was Phil (NASCAR announcer) Gramm, Hank Paulson and the rest of Bush's lying crooks who only recently sold the swill that, "the Glass Stegall Act (the valued post Great Depression regulation of 1933, which insured that Wall Street manipulation among investment banks, financial brokerage, and insurance, would never again cause another financial collapse) is nothing but an old 'depression era relic' which needs to be overturned to allow our 21st century financial innovations to keep America competitive".
After these lying political whores got their way and killed Glass Stegall --- almost immediately, the crooked Wall Street con-artists used their new-found deregulation to 'game' the system and drive the U.S. and the whole world into new Great Depression and 'bailout bonanza' implosion of 2008, 2009 and 20XX --- which is still destroying our main-street economy, our homes, our jobs, and our country.
Now the same type of political (and judicial) whores for the global corporate Empire are saying, "the old 1907 laws preventing corporations from bribing and distorting the our political system of human/citizen democracy is nothing but an almost 19th century relic which prevents free speech".
As Clint Eastwood said in "Dirty Harry": "Well, punk. Do you feel lucky?" Do you want to give these lying corporate, financial, Elitist, EMPIRE whores a second chance to rain ultimate death and destruction on our country? "Well, do you American citizens?"
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Doesn't anyone realize that, though they have the rights of US citizens, CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!? What is this charade? Just watch the "Terminator" series to understand what's going on. It's not rocket science.
Sadly, however, the courts having awarded them the rights of "persons" and given their singular fiduciary responsibility for maximizing their own profits, they actually end up with much greater power and influence than any ordinary human people, and with far fewer responsibilities and obligations.
In the circumstances, I don't think popular recognition or any other distinctions really matter much to them. Robotic terminators and drones are mere toys, or tactical implementation devices if you prefer less frivolous terminology.
At that point, we the sheeple, should respectfully (and sheepeshly) request that our Congresswhores wear uniforms like those of the Nascar drivers so it's easier for us to identify who their corporate sponsors are.
This is one of the best ideas I have heard in many years of trying to figure out how to expose the corporate pay masters known as Congress! Thank you, and boy did I get a laugh out of your comparision to Nascar, again, excellent!!
This is a great idea! How about we also expand it to include state officials, and then each state could change their respecive flags to indicate which corporation owns the population of each state.
You can redo the flag too. Instead of 50 stars, allow the 50 largest Corporate donors to a Political party to put their logo up there.
You mean like this?
https://www.adbusters.org/files/downloads/jpgs/adbusters_corporate_flag.jpg
Giving corporations increased political influence is akin to releasing even MORE greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: at this time in history, we really, REALLY don't need it.
Government and business should provide a system of checks and balances to prevent centralized control rather than collude to encourage fascism.
If the so-called "Supreme" Court decides in favor of corporations on this issue, it (not increasing poverty or healthcare reform) may very well become the tipping point that awakens long-apathetic Americans. As much as I would prefer peaceful reform, I have gradually come to believe that revolution or civil war in my lifetime is probably inevitable.
Nanothermite September 10th, 2009 7:53 pm
"If the so-called "Supreme" Court decides in favor of corporations on this issue, it (not increasing poverty or healthcare reform) may very well become the tipping point that awakens long-apathetic Americans. As much as I would prefer peaceful reform, I have gradually come to believe that revolution or civil war in my lifetime is probably inevitable."
I completely agree with you.
Historically, the Supreme Court has used the "Fourteenth Amendment" to expand federal power and that of their Wall Street pimpsters and frauds, while they conveniently ignore the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which place limits on those powers to protect state sovereignty and "people's rights".
In State v. Phillips (1975) the Utah Supreme Court said: "No court in full possession of its faculties could honestly hold that the amendment (Fourteenth) was properly approved and adopted." And this is not the only State Supreme Court case which questions the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment that allegedly was one vote short of the two-thirds required to constitutionally pass the amendment.
The people of this country have been sleeping for a long time, though many are beginning to wake up from their hybernation. As more people lose their life savings, homes, jobs, etc. and begin to realize that their government is working for Wall Street and not them, all hell will break loose. It is no longer a question of "if" but a question of "when".
Corp is Borg.
Revoke Corporate "Personhood"!!
There is a song "american tears" it is being sung by many school children. It could be our bella ciao.
"Through vast lobbying, astroturf, media and legal efforts that dwarf anything progressives have created, powerful moneyed interests in this country have been able largely to control legislation even after 30-year peak in Democratic electoral success."
And George Soros is on which side of the equasion? Any person can go to "opensecrets.org" or to "politics1.com" and learn who the major supporters of any candidate are and what industires promote which candidate. The corporations already have all the influence and control they need.
This is a 1st amendment issue. That the Supreme Court decided to expand the issue is disturbing, but not discussed in this article. The charts included have nothing to do with the facts of the case and only serve to obfuscate the truth.
I'll submit that we need campaign reform, but not like this. What is needed is equal opportunity for all candidates to address the nation during national debates. Candidates should be given the SAME question, not ask one candidate what his views on Iraq are and the next if he'd seen a UFO. Any candidate who recieves federal funds should be required to be present at all national debates and the debates should be ruled over by NON-partisan (not BI-partisan) officials. Any candidate who is to appear on a ballot should be included (even if federal funds are not in the equasion) Just one opinion.
If anything the past 8 years proves,what I learned during the 80's under reagan. Elections have lasting consequences. Roberts and Alito lied during their confirmation hearings when they said they would give fair shrift to settled law. These guys are the activist judges that the right-wing nuts would be whinning about if they had been nominated by a liberal president. Did you see McCain yesterday with Feingold looking like an idiot for voting for Alito and Roberts and voting against Sotomayor. Sotomayor's argument yesterday pointed out that this case had no business being in front of the Highest Court in the land or should be settled narrowly not being broaden to allow corporations to contaminate elections further than they already do. I think Americans are finally starting to catch on, that republicans don't have their best interest at heart. They are totally owned subsidiary of Corporate America and couldn't care less about the regular hard-working men/women of this great country.
BOYCOTT THE ACLU
Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union is on the corporate side of the money is speech issue. You can read all about it by googling: ACLU,clinton,movie,"supreme court"
Spread the word about corporate liberals, and take your money and support away from these traitors to democracy.
Laurenceofberk:
The ACLU (of which I have long been a member) is probably the only thing that kept us from "official" facism during the Bush regime, and is very likely the only thing preventing it now. I don't agree with all ACLU positions, but I can give the ACLU at least an 85% approval rating. . .far higher than I give any politician currently holding public office or, for that matter, the Supreme Court. The whole POINT of the ACLU is that everyone is entitled to civil liberties, including those whose political beliefs we may in fact despise.
By the way, why do so many people give "Google" free advertising by turning their brand name into a verb? It's not even the best search engine in terms of function.
FYI: http://www.googlesux.com/
With all respects, I believe you do not fully understand the implications of this case. I have to agree with NANOTHERMITE as to ACLU's role in this. This is NOT about "corporate" speech or money as speech, but rather about "free speech".
We do need to restrict 'corporate personhood', and implement an easy way to pull corporate charters, but this case will end up hurting non-profit and service corporations far more than the for-profit business giants.
I have not always agreed with the ACLU, and believe that SOME of their actions in the past have shown bias towards a certain segment of society, but they perform a job that needs to be done. I support your right to 'call for a boycott' for ANY reason you wish, but in this case I'd hope you'd think about the consequences of allowing the ruling to stand.