Supreme Court Ruling a Major Step for Democracy — IN THE WRONG DIRECTION

Corporate personhood is a major flaw in our system of government. The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding “free speech” for corporations makes a mockery of the electoral process. Here’s an editorial from the New York Times.

The Court’s Blow to Democracy

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. (The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)



3 responses to “Supreme Court Ruling a Major Step for Democracy — IN THE WRONG DIRECTION

  1. Are corporations really persons?

    Do corporations think?

    Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

    If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: “It”)

    Has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

    Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

    Has a corporation ever written a novel that inspired millions?

    Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

    Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

    Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

    Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?

    If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

    Should corporations kiss on the first date?

    Our lives – yours and mine – have more worth than any goddamned corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision on Thursday is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling – it’s an insult to our humanity.

    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

  2. The superior job Tom Greco has done in the money system showed us this is where we were headed.

    If in fact Corporations are Citizens then we should see how they tithe and pay to charities as a percentage of their income in percentage terms of individuals.

    In my view if corporations gave to charities and faith-based organizations in the same percentage terms then we would move the bar significantly in terms of social welfare.

  3. Calling a coreporation a “person” under the due process clause is a violation of due process itwself, since due process has long been defined, since the days of Justice Joseph Story in the early 1800s, to be “lawful judgement of peers” and “law of the land”, common law.

    To put a due process protection in the 5th amendment against the fedeal government, and then letting the federal government interpret due process protections, is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

    Since “due process” pre-dated both federal and state laws, the due process clause in both 5th and 14th amendments are subject to definitions by the people, not by the courts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s