Alexander Ryking

Rarely have so few imposed such damage on so many. When five conservative members of the Supreme Court handed for-profit corporations the right to secretly flood political campaigns with tidal waves of cash on the eve of an election, they moved America closer to outright plutocracy, where political power derived from wealth is devoted to the protection of wealth. It is now official: Just as they have adorned our athletic stadiums and multiple places of public assembly with their logos, corporations can officially put their brand on the government of the United States as well as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the fifty states.

Citizens United is but the latest battle in the class war waged for thirty years from the top down by the corporate and political right. Instead of creating a fair and level playing field for all, government would become the agent of the powerful and privileged. Public institutions, laws, and regulations, as well as the ideas, norms, and beliefs that aimed to protect the common good and helped create America’s iconic middle class, would become increasingly vulnerable. The Nobel Laureate economist Robert Solow succinctly summed up results: “The redistribution of wealth in favor of the wealthy and of power in favor of the powerful.” In the wake of Citizens United, popular resistance is all that can prevent the richest economic interests in the country from buying the democratic process lock, stock, and barrel.

Fighting Back Against Corporate Personhood

January 28, 2012

66 notes

New York City Council Votes Against Corporate Personhood, Citizens United

kathiek:

Missoula, Montana; Boulder, Colorado; and South Miami, Florida, have all done it, but you know it’s really catching on when the Big Apple jumps on board.

Tags: politics Editor's Choice corporatocracy corporate personhood news

January 05, 2012

43 notes

The Fight to End Corporate Personhood Heats Up

abaldwin360:

by Kara Scharwath | commondreams.org

It’s been nearly two years since an intensely divided Supreme Court solidified the idea of corporate personhood by ruling that political spending by corporations is protected as a form of free speech under the First Amendment. Since then, that landmark decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee has allowed for unrestricted and undisclosed campaign spending by corporations, a concept that we are just starting to see the effects of as the 2012 election draws near.

Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in September, there has been a lot of attention on the potential for political corruption by powerful corporations and the subsequent gross imbalance of wealth and power it creates. Over the past few weeks, it looks like there is finally some momentum starting to build in efforts to overturn the landmark Citizens United case, cut the ties between corporations and the government, and put an end to the idea that Corporations should enjoy the same rights as people.

Even before Occupy Wall Street, when the ruling in the Citizens United was made, it was met with a lof of opposition. The Supreme Court was split 5-4 and the ruling Justices were bitterly divided on the decision. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens, the opposing Justices argued that allowing a flood of corporate money into the political marketplace would corrupt democracy. President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” And a poll conducted by the Washington Post shortly after the ruling found that Americans from both parties overwhelmingly opposed the decision.

[FULL STORY]