Americans United Against...

[Jermyn Davidson]

My point is that the people who are upset, at least 75% of all Americans polled, from a broad political spectrum, see the latest SCOTUS ruling as damaging for our democratic process.

Why are we upset?

Are we all just deceived?


The article is not about foreigners pouring money into our elections.

The article is about America's disdain that private companies have unfettered access to our election process.


Is the disdain not warranted?


How is this article not telling the truth?

How are Americans not supposed to be upset about this?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

My point is that the people who are upset, at least 75% of all Americans polled, from a broad political spectrum, see the latest SCOTUS ruling as damaging for our democratic process.

Why are we upset?

Are we all just deceived?

The article is not about foreigners pouring money into our elections.

The article is about America's disdain that private companies have unfettered access to our election process.

Is the disdain not warranted?

How is this article not telling the truth?

How are Americans not supposed to be upset about this?

And the reason they're upset is because what they've heard from the president and admin and what they've read in the news is not right.

Private companies don't have "unfettered" access. Gimme a break. This is the kinda trash that people hear and believe. There are limits.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

And the reason they're upset is because what they've heard from the president and admin and what they've read in the news is not right.

Private companies don't have "unfettered" access. Gimme a break. This is the kinda trash that people hear and believe. There are limits.

So is the article I've referenced lying or not?


Are the people referenced in the article I've linked lying or telling the truth?

[n david]

Let's put it how you may understand it....

Several years ago, the administration from that time and former presidents, politicians from both sides of the aisle, intelligence agencies and newspapers all said the same thing...

Iraq has WMDs.

Well.....years later we now know the truth that there were no WMDs in Iraq. That all of these people were wrong. Whether they blatantly lied or not, I don't believe they did.

In this case, many are blatantly and outright lying about the ruling. BHO and the democrats have politicized the issue and have lied about it. There's no mistake on their part. As for the newspapers, I have read a few that have corrected the lies and come out against what BHO said in his SOTU address and wrote what the SCOTUS reversal actually did as compared to what others are saying it did.

The article is wrong and deceptive. It makes people think Unions are just now getting in on the action, when the truth is they've been allowed all along. The article doesn't point out that there are laws already on the books that ban foreign contributions.

So whether it's blatantly lying or not, it's at least wrong and deceptive.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Let's put it how you may understand it....

Several years ago, the administration from that time and former presidents, politicians from both sides of the aisle, intelligence agencies and newspapers all said the same thing...

Iraq has WMDs.

Well.....years later we now know the truth that there were no WMDs in Iraq. That all of these people were wrong. Whether they blatantly lied or not, I don't believe they did.

In this case, many are blatantly and outright lying about the ruling. BHO and the democrats have politicized the issue and have lied about it. There's no mistake on their part. As for the newspapers, I have read a few that have corrected the lies and come out against what BHO said in his SOTU address and wrote what the SCOTUS reversal actually did as compared to what others are saying it did.

The article is wrong and deceptive. It makes people think Unions are just now getting in on the action, when the truth is they've been allowed all along. The article doesn't point out that there are laws already on the books that ban foreign contributions.

So whether it's blatantly lying or not, it's at least wrong and deceptive.

This article is wrong too?


http://www.dailyjournalonline.com/ar...7885904955.txt


Apparently, the unions did not have unfettered access, but because of the SCOTUS ruling, they now do.



So either you and Ferd are really misinformed or people all around the world are genuinely misinformed.


My bet is that you and Ferd are simply misinformed about the wide reaching effects of the SCOTUS ruling.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Ok here is another article discussing the SCOTUS' most recent ruling on election spending.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012104866.html




Please, tell me where this article is lying, mistaken or simply misleading Americans away from the truth of the virtuous decision of the SCOTUS.

Bottom line is, as this article spells out, CORPORATIONS now have the legal ability to use their profits to fund election campaigns.



However, you and Ferd really see nothing wrong with this, right?

[Nitehawk013]

And what is the problem with Corps using their money for influence?

You'll have to forgive me, but as a stauch capitalist who believes in the incredible power of the market I think it's about time corps had the ability to use their money to fight politically against tjhose who do not have capitalisms best interests in mind. Groups like the unions and the left in general have been anti-capitalism for decades and the coprs have had to fight with on hand behind their backs.

Good job SCOTUS.

[oletime]

yes the article lied, bo lied, nothing new there , his whole career, life and qualifications are lies, mcain lied . as for you jd ? can you spell provocatuer ? me either . you get the point !

[Aquila]

Today there is a growing trend in corporate America. More and more private corporations are choosing not to employ smokers and are requiring employees to take tobacco tests to verify that there are non-smokers. Those found to be smokers are being fired even if they only smoke on personal time at home.

Now, I have mixed feelings on the subject but it’s a fact that corporations are becoming increasingly intrusive as it suits their bottom line. That bothers me.

Let’s say that one day in the future a conglomerate of corporations called Omnicorp produce the technology to micro-chip every American citizen. These corporations will receive billions of dollars from the government to issue their new bio-tag IDs. Now there’s an election coming up with one politician who favors the initiative and one who doesn’t. Corporations that will benefit from the issuing of this new security technology are going to pour untold amounts of money behind his running for election. You will hear the dissenting voice on public radio and sound bite news blurbs. But for the most part the television and airwaves are going to be FILLED with patriotic music, scenes of mom baking hot apple pie in the kitchen, and a message illustrating how these microchips are as American as it comes. And in this age of increased national security challenges it’s our duty to be micro-chipped. There will be adds about lost and abducted children, ailing elderly parents. All demonstrating how this new micro-chip technology will make life “safer”. There will be a plethora of these ads since they have all the corporate money behind them. The adds will increasingly give the impression that this is the opinion of every American… the adds are on every station, at all times, and after all… have you heard the “other guy’s” adds? No, he’s just a marginalized voice of the fringe who doesn’t favor this initiative because of their paranoia or political irrationality. So vote for our pro-chip candidate.

The way I see it a corporation isn’t a human being. It’s money and resources do not belong on the political landscape. The CEO of a corporation can donate private funds out of his own account if he favors a candidate, just like me. He can write an article to the editor, just like me. He can go to the ballot box and vote his convictions, just like me. Why give him such a great advantage if using corporate money to get his message out and silence anyone else’s?

I do see a freedom of speech issue here. In a society where money talks… the one with the most money (corporations) will have the floor relatively unchallenged.

I just don’t want American to become the greatest nation money can buy.

[Aquila]

I know it's an old aritcle but I found it interesting.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
First published February, 2000


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power...."

Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At ReclaimDemocracy.org, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation's founders who struggled successfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level -- the U.S. Constitution.

Thanks to our friends at the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) for their permission to use excerpts of their research for this article.
Please visit our Corporate Personhood page for a huge library of articles exploring this topic more deeply. You might also be interested to read our proposed Constitutional Amendments to revoke illegitimate corporate power, erode the power of money over elections, and establish an affirmative constitutional right to vote.