Friday, January 22, 2010

SCOTUS ruling and the attack on individual citizens

Seriously, this is merely one step closer to outright corporatism. Now the legal readings and ramifications can be debated intellectually......from the definition of 'person' to the controversial note-writing of J.C. Bancroft Davis in 1886. This ruling takes power away from the individual citizen and consolidates more power in the hands of the board of directors....who wield the combined power, money and ideological aims of those who both work for and own shares in the company. But those employees are not able to control where the fruit of their labors go, nor is it clear that those employees would even know where that money goes.

The ruling also adds consolidated power to the incestuous relationship between politics and the media, as all mainstream media outlets are corporate owned. I have no doubt that anyone who supports this ruling is either terminally inept, or merely recognizes that their chosen political party will be the beneficiary of this ruling and are willing to surrender democratic principles and liberty for that end. To be clear...I don't believe in allowing unions this power both cases, money derived from employees can be used against the wishes of said employee. If like minded groups of individuals wish to come together in the form of a PAC, and use raised money for political ends....I have no issues. But voting and the political process should be centered on the individual, voting citizen.

I for one realize that this ruling does not allow corporations to donate money to candidates directly.....that question has yet to be addressed by SCOTUS. But corporations can run their own ads for specific long as the disclaimer is present recording who paid for the ad. Not too much difference, no?

My major issue with the ruling stems to the perception of 'personhood' for corporations. Your employer or union is now edging increasingly closer to holding the same electoral rights as you. When corporations are held to a judicial standard commensurate with individuals, then a case can be made for personhood.

What's troubling to has is two aspects: firstly, the corporate board members or union officers have doubled their power in advocacy for candidates or issues. They retain the individual power to donate and speak out, and they now have the corporate power to do likewise. You and I are left with half of the ability to influence elections. This is vastly different than groups of consensual, like-minded individuals committing to a political cause or candidate.

Secondly, corporations and unions can use the real dollars or the fruits of labor of member, employees and shareholders to fund issues or candidates that very likely do not represent the political interests of all of the organization.

Those who state that the ultimate power still resides in the individual voter are correct technically speaking...but consider that all media outlets are corporate owned and corporations that have been bailed out or retain lucrative contracts with the federal government [especially those that depend on a specific brand of Administration] have the ability to channelize and narrow information that is available to the voter.


  1. I am fucking livid over this. I have been all over the blogs. I hope the american peeps now realize where this country is headed. But I rather doubt it. They blatantly told the american peeps that we are headed toward a fascist state. ChiAmeriKa is coming toward a neighborhood near you. This fits right into China being the role model for the NWO.

  2. I dont know about China as the model state for any NWO, but I'm with you RZ regarding the blatant radicalism of this court and the direction it is shoving all of us. We need some ju-jitsu on this whole corporate personhood issue. It is ill understood among the people but its wrongheadedness is so obvious that people who learn of it are ticked. "A company has the same rights as me? AYFKM? How the hell is that?"

    Well, I'm with Greer -- lets apply "capital punishment" to corporations who commit capital crimes. Let's jail corporate boards who allow corporations to commit crimes and place their irresponsible company's assets into goverment receivership until their are reorganized and/or broken up. Is this not what we need to do to the fraudulent banks and their selfish officers?



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.