You are hereCorporatism and Fascism

Corporatism and Fascism


Corporatism and Fascism

A Supreme Act Of Judicial Treason Against The People Of The United States, And What We Can And Must Do About It

A Supreme Act Of Judicial Treason Against The People Of The United States, And What We Can And Must Do About It
"The Pen"

Because of the gravity of the crime against the Constitution committed by a gang of 5 right wing judicial outlaws on our Supreme Court, we are launching two critical action pages at once:

By any fair legal definition, the decision yesterday by The Supreme Court 5 constitutes nothing less than an act of TREASON against the people of the United States. Having read and analyzed the entire 183 page decision and all of its concurring and dissenting opinions ourselves, we are fully prepared to support this accusatory conclusion.

Having so grossly abused its jurisdiction by presuming to decide a question expressly WAIVED by the petitioner in the Court below (p 12), this rogue Supreme Court ruled for the FIRST time that NO corporation can be constrained from unlimited influence over our elections. And even assuming that the Court intended the decision to only apply to American corporations, the Court expressly DECLINED (pp 46-47) to reach the question of whether foreign ownership stakes in American corporations should likewise be given carte blanche to put their thumbs on the scales of our democracy.

Thus, until Congress FURTHER acts (and it must, though it could not have escaped the attention of The Supreme Court 5 that the current Republican minority has vowed to obstruct ANYTHING of consequence that Congress might try to pass), there is now nothing to constrain foreign nationals, even our most sworn enemies, from usurping what even the most die hard Tea Bagger takes as an article of faith, that the rights of citizenship of this country are ONLY for Americans. This must be construed, within the four corners of our Constitution, as deliberately and knowingly exposing the United States of America to harm in the interim, by giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies (Constitution Article 3, section 3), should our enemies now wish to take advantage of this unprecedented and rash decision. In simple Constitutional terms . . . treason!!

Why not the vote?

Leftists Slam Capitalism at Social Forum in Brazil


Leftists slam capitalism at Social Forum in Brazil
By Associated Press | Yahoo! News | Submitted by Michael Munk | www.MichaelMunk.com

Tens of thousands of leftists massed Monday to kick off five days of railing against unfettered capitalism at the World Social Forum, a gathering that protests the bankers and other leaders who attend the World Economic Forum at a Swiss ski resort.

Accompanied by thundering drumbeats and samba blaring from sound trucks, a crowd of exuberant activists estimated by police to number 25,000 marched through Porto Alegre waving communist flags and shouting socialist slogans.

They assailed corporate greed as the main reason the world plunged into an economic slump and trumpeted causes ranging from total state control of nations' petroleum reserves to environmental preservation and animal rights in the 10th annual version of the event in this city near southern Brazil's border with Uruguay.

Participants said the forum is especially important this year now that governments from the United States to Europe are moving to play bigger roles in managing the global economy.

In contrast, the World Economic Forum that starts Wednesday in Davos is expected to see fewer leaders than in years past, and U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to clamp down on the size and activity of banks is sure to be on the minds of many of the rich and powerful heading to Switzerland.

"They have driven the capitalist system into chaos," said Sergio Bernardo, a Brazilian human rights activist sporting a bright red shirt emblazoned with the words "Bourgeoisie Stinks!" "We're letting them know we can create a world free of exploitation that will help the poor." Read more.

The Supreme Court’s Right-Wing Clique has Given Us a Great Opportunity

By Dave Lindorff

Flash! The Supreme Court’s latest 5-4 decision overturning the over 60-year-old ban on corporations giving money to political campaigns is not the end of democracy as we know it, or the onset of fascism in America, as some of hyperventilating progressives have been claiming.

Sure it’s an outrage to say, as the court majority did, that corporations have the same rights as people. But let’s face it: Corporations have long dominated the American political scene. They didn’t need to be free to donate in their own corporate names. They have had their political action committees to do the job, and that’s worked just fine for them, as witness the current state of the two pro-corporate parties in Congress, and the string of blatantly pro-corporate presidents we’ve had for as far back as I can remember.

Legal Defense Fund: Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Case “Inevitable”

Legal Defense Fund: Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Case “Inevitable” | Press Release | CELDF
Continues Long History of Expansion of Corporate Rights over the Rights of People, Communities, and Nature

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is the only public interest law firm in the U.S. that has worked with municipalities to question whether corporate “rights” can coexist with the democratic rights of communities to local self-government.

Those communities have recognized that corporate rights and privileges are routinely wielded to override democratic decision making and undermine efforts to protect the environment and public health, local economies and local agriculture. Through the adoption of local, binding laws, these communities are pioneering a new structure of law which does not recognize the rights and privileges of corporations.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Decision

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – giving corporations the ability to spend money directly to influence federal elections under the Constitution’s First Amendment – was inevitable. It represents a logical expansion of corporate constitutional “rights” – which include the rights of persons which have been judicially conferred upon corporations. “Personhood” rights mean that corporations possess First Amendment rights to free speech, along with a litany of other rights that are secured to persons under the federal Bill of Rights.

The expansion of corporate rights and privileges under the law has been deliberate, beginning nearly two hundred years ago with the Dartmouth decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations have rights that municipal corporations – governments composed of “we the people” – did not.

The expansion of these rights and privileges occurred during the 1800s, throughout the 1900s, until today. For those who think that the way to stem this tide is to find the perfect lawsuit, we say, stop looking. It doesn’t exist, for there is no magic bullet.

Rather, in order to reverse decisions like Citizens United, the whole concept of corporate “rights” must be examined, and how corporations possessing “rights” interferes with the exercise of rights by people, communities, and nature. And, it’s not simply that corporations have “personhood” rights. It goes well beyond that.

Answer to the Court: the American Elections for Americans Only Act of 2010

Answer to the Court: the American Elections for Americans Only Act of 2010
By Brent Budowsky

The elected President and Congress should answer the unelected Supreme Court with by passing what I call the American Elections for Americans Only Act of 2010. According to the recent Gallup poll following the Court decision, 76% of voters believe that elected officials should regulate American corporate political spending. I believe my proposal would garner support from more than 90% of our voters who are tired of outsourcing our jobs, our finance, and our strength in the world and are outraged at the prospect of outsourcing the buying of our democracy and our nation.

In my proposal Congress would prohibit the kind of spending prohibited by McCain-Feingold by any public company, private company, or corporate entity that receives foreign finance or investment. I do not believe the Supreme Court would find this law unconstitutional, but if it did, there should be a constitutional amendment that would overwhelmingly pass because the American people will demand that American elections be for Americans only.

Let’s use the example of major Wall Street firms and banking institutions that would be banned under my proposal from making enormous independent and unregulated campaign donations because they are heavily influenced by foreign finance that often has interests that are against the interests of the United States.

For example, there are sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East that have major stakes in these firms as investors and major relations with these firms as partners and customers. Today the CEO's and corporate boards of major financial institutions have fiduciary duties to serve the interests of what the law calls foreign owners, and because they are dependent on this foreign finance, they are unduly influenced by these interests that often have interests directly opposed to American interests.

Do we want foreign investors who oppose the state of Israel, or covertly support Osama Bin Laden, to influence the spending of many millions of dollars to buy American elections?

Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County Launches Move to Amend The Constitution

Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County Launches Move to Amend The Constitution
By Michael Bonanno | Op Ed News

Interview with David Cobb Helps to Explain Move

In 2006, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County in Northern California wrote the first draft of legislation designed to ban non-local corporations' involvement in local elections. The target of the involvement was financial contributions. In a historic vote, the residents of Humboldt County passed the measure.

DUHC then became an educational organization. It has created programs and facilitated workshops intended to help other localities free themselves of corporate interference of local elections.

Yesterday, The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the efforts and accomplishments of DUHC.

Once the Supreme Court's decision to give unlimited campaign contribution rights to corporations became official, DUHC launched a move to amend the Constitution to negate the court's decision.

DUHC released the following statement after the decision was announced:

Yet again the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the ruling elite against the interests of the American people. Today in Citizens United vs. FEC they overturned the flimsy federal campaign finance reform laws afforded by the McCain-Feingold law. Corporations can now spend unlimited money in buying our elections. The Court has legalized corporate bribery of our elected officials.

So if you were already disgusted by the fact that over $5 billion dollars was spent in the 2008 election, watch out. Because the floodgates are now wide open! Read more.

Personal Corporatehood: Coping With the Reason Divided of Citizens United

Personal Corporatehood: Coping With the Reason Divided of Citizens United
by Randall Amster | Common Dreams

There's great consternation brewing over the recent Supreme Court decision that cements and extends the misbegotten logic of "corporate personhood," and rightly so. Surely one of the most farcical and tortuous doctrines ever established in our system of jurisprudence, this conflated concept has drawn the ire of (small-d) democrats at least as far back as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1816: "I hope we shall ... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Ethics and politics aside, as a matter of law this extension of power and rights to corporations is woven into the very definitional fabric of our federal legal code: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise ... the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals...." Still, the notion of "corporate personhood" remains something of a misnomer. In our system, as now expanded by the Supreme Court, corporations actually enjoy more rights than individuals do in many ways. To wit: liability shields, rights of transfer, political access and influence, subsidies, laissez-faire regulation, freedom of movement, self-determination, self-governance, tax breaks, etc. In particular when it comes to political speech, corporations are now essentially unfettered in their freedom, something that us mere mortals have yet to fully secure. Consider the language of the Court's recent ruling: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Does anyone else see the ray of hope in this line of reasoning? Apparently, the government can no longer arrest protestors during political demonstrations, if we are to take this literally as a matter of "strict construction." First Amendment advocates have long sought such a validation, yet somehow it took a corporation claiming their speech was impinged to finally motivate the Justices to so rule. Disconcertingly, the Court didn't actually have to address these larger questions, since the facts presented in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission left open myriad avenues of decision that would have been consistent with the longstanding doctrine of "constitutional avoidance." In light of this case, where the Court actively reached for the constitutional questions by calling upon the parties to re-argue and re-brief the issues along broader lines than originally brought forward on appeal, it appears that we in fact do have a Supreme Court headed by those dreaded "activist judges" after all. Read more.

In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending

In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rules corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. One lawmaker describes it as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery. We speak with constitutional law professor, Jamin Raskin. [includes rush transcript]

Grayson: Fight Now Or ‘Kiss Your Country Goodbye’ to Exxon, Wal-Mart

Grayson: Fight now or ‘kiss your country goodbye’ to Exxon, Wal-Mart
By Sahil Kapur | Raw Story

Inaction will create 'Congressman from Wal-Mart'

Responding to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday to overturn corporate spending limits in federal elections, progressive firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately highlighted a series of moves to "avoid the terrible consequences of the decision."

"If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Grayson told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced.

"You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers."

Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- "opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law." Read more.

Grayson: "Save Our Democracy" - Introduces 5 House Bills to Prevent Corporate Takeover of America

GRAYSON: "SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY" | Press Release

(Washington, DC) – Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-8) has introduced legislation to prevent a corporate takeover of government in America. His “Save Our Democracy” Reform Package (H.R. 4431-4435) aims to stave off the threat of "corpocracy" arising from the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder.” Congressman Grayson said.

Here are the bills that Congressman Grayson has introduced, and what they aim to accomplish:

1) The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.

Statement from Doris “Granny D” Haddock In Response to the Supreme Court’s Decision To Kill Campaign Finance Reform

Statement from Doris “Granny D” Haddock in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to kill campaign finance reform

Ten years ago, I walked from California to Washington, D.C. to help gather support for campaign finance reform. I used the novelty of my age (I was 90), to garner attention to the fact that our democracy, for which so many people have given their lives, is being subverted to the needs of wealthy interests, and that we must do something about it. I talked to thousands of people and gave hundreds of speeches and interviews, and, in every section of the nation, I was deeply moved by how heartsick Americans are by the current state of our politics.

Well, we got some reform bills passed, but things seem worse now than ever. Our good government reform groups are trying to staunch the flow of special-interest money into our political campaigns, but they are mostly whistling in a wind that has become a gale force of corrupting cash. Conditions are so bad that people now assume that nothing useful can pass Congress due to the vote-buying power of powerful financial interests. The health care reform debacle is but the most recent example.

The Supreme Court, representing a radical fringe that does not share the despair of the grand majority of Americans, has today made things considerably worse by undoing the modest reforms I walked for and went to jail for, and that tens of thousands of other Americans fought very hard to see enacted. So now, thanks to this Court, corporations can fund their candidates without limits and they can run mudslinging campaigns against everyone else, right up to and including election day.

The Supreme Court now opens the floodgates to usher in a new tsunami of corporate money into politics. If we are to retain our democracy, we must go a new direction until a more reasonable Supreme Court is in place. I would propose a one-two punch of the following nature:

Sanders: Opposition to Bernanke Growing

Sanders: Opposition to Bernanke Growing | Press Release

The Federal Reserve has four main responsibilities: to conduct monetary policy in a way that leads to maximum employment and stable prices; to maintain the safety and soundness of financial institutions; to contain systemic risk in financial markets; and to protect consumers against deceptive and unfair financial products.

WASHINGTON, January 20 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said today he senses growing opposition to a second term for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

“I sense that many Democrats see the Massachusetts election as a wake-up call,” Sanders said. “There is a growing understanding that our economy is in severe distress, a greater appreciation that people are disgusted with the never-ending greed on Wall Street, and a better recognition that we need a new direction at the Fed.

“People do not want another term for the man whose major job as Fed chairman was to protect the safety and soundness of our financial system but instead was asleep at the switch,” he added. “I am confident that more and more senators understand that we need a new Fed and a new Wall Street and will oppose Bernanke’s confirmation.”

Sanders on December 5 placed a hold on Bernanke’s nomination. The term of the central bank chief, first appointed by President George W. Bush, runs out on January 31.

Dateline: Critical Conditon

You have health insurance coverage through your employer, so the health care debate isn't much of an issue for you, aside from the fact that you don't want to "pay for someone else's health insurance." Watch this program to see how health insurance companies determine your care.

McCain: Campaign Finance Reform Is Dead

McCain: Campaign Finance Reform Is Dead
Sen. Who Co-Wrote Finance Laws Not Surprised by Court Ruling Given "Skeptical, Sarcastic Comments" by Justices
By Michelle Levi | CBS


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Senator John McCain, who helped rewrite the nation's campaign finance laws, said Sunday that this week's Supreme Court ruling removing limits from corporate spending on political advertising means that campaign finance reform is dead.

"I don't think there's much that can be done," he told "Face the Nation" moderator Bob Schieffer.

McCain said he was not surprised by Court's decision: "I went over to observe the oral arguments," he said. "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to it.

"I think that it was interesting that they have had no experience in the political arena," McCain said. "I was reminded of the story of Lyndon Johnson, when he was vice president, was told about President Kennedy's appointments of all these brilliant people, and he said, 'You know, I wish one of them had run for county sheriff.'"

The Republican senator noted that in prior Court hearing on the issue of campaign financing, Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor had taken a different position. "Both had significant political experience; Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none," he said.

"We are going to see now an inundation of special-interest money into political campaigns," McCain warned. "I think that diminishes the influence of average citizens."

Schieffer asked McCain if he thought the issue of campaign finance reform was "dead."

"Oh, I think so." He predicted a backlash would occur when people see the amounts of unfettered money, from corporations and unions, that will go into political campaigns. Read more.

Biden Says U.S. Will Appeal Judge's Ruling in Blackwater Trial

Biden Says U.S. Will Appeal Judge's Ruling in Blackwater Trial
In Baghdad, VP Says He Regrets Contractors' Killing of 17 Iraqi Civilians
By Rachel Martin | ABC News

Vice President Joe Biden today expressed personal regret over the 2007 shooting in which Blackwater guards working for the U.S. government in Baghdad, shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians, and he said the United States would appeal a recent court decision to dismiss the charges against the men implicated in the killings....

"There are American men and women in uniform that were sent home in body bags because of the anger and hatred this created," he said.

Five Blackwater guards were ultimately charged with manslaughter and a sixth pleaded guilty. But last month, a U.S. court dismissed the entire case on a technicality.

Speaking in Baghdad today, Biden said that was unacceptable.

"A dismissal, I want to make clear, is not an acquittal and today I'm announcing that the U.S. will appeal this decision," he said.

The shooting and the lawsuits it triggered have debilitated Blackwater to some extent. The company was kicked out of Iraq and had its license to work there revoked and now the company is operating under a new name -- Xe -- to try to wipe the slate clean and undo some of the public relations damage it has suffered.

The company still maintains that its employees acted lawfully that day, but Iraqi leaders call it a massacre. Read more.

Senator Russ Feingold: High Court Opens The Floodgates

High court opens the floodgates
By Russ Feingold | USA Today

Excerpts:

...With the court's decision, corporations will now be able to dip into their huge general treasuries to pay for independent advertising. With their enormous resources, corporations can now vastly outspend the candidates and other outside parties in almost any race....

When the Supreme Court ruled that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act that Sen. John McCain and I championed was constitutional, it noted that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was "firmly embedded in our law." Yet the court only a few years later has upended that prohibition....

A majority of the court ignored several time-honored principles that have served for the past two centuries to preserve the public's respect for and acceptance of its decisions. One is the concept of "judicial restraint," the idea that a court should decide a case on constitutional grounds only if absolutely necessary, and should rule as narrowly as possible. Here, the court did just the opposite — decided the constitutionality of all restrictions on corporate spending in connection with elections in an obscure case in which many far more narrow rulings were possible.

The court also ignored stare decisis, the historic respect for precedent... It's hard to imagine a bigger blow to stare decisis than the court's decision to strike down laws in over 20 states and a federal law that has been the cornerstone of the nation's campaign-finance system for 100 years.

Finally, the court ignored the longstanding practice of deciding a case only after lower courts have fully examined the facts. Here, because the broad constitutional questions considered by the Supreme Court were not raised in the court below, there was no factual record at all on which the court could base its legal conclusions. Read more.

Iraq War Was Illegal, Dutch Panel Rules

Iraq war was illegal, Dutch panel rules
Inquiry says conflict had no sound mandate in international law as it emerges UK denied key letter to seven-judge tribunal
By Afua Hirsch | Guardian.co.UK

The war in Iraq had "no basis in international law", a Dutch inquiry found today, in the first ever independent legal assessment of the decision to invade.

In a series of damning findings, a seven-member panel in the Netherlands concluded that the war, which was supported by the Dutch government following intelligence from Britain and the US, had not been justified in law.

"The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy," the inquiry in the Hague concluded. "The military action had no sound mandate in international law."

In a further twist, it emerged that the UK government refused to disclose a key document requested by the Dutch panel.

The document – allegedly a letter from Tony Blair asking for the support of the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende – was handed over in a breach of diplomatic protocol and on the basis that it was for Balkenende's eyes only, an inquiry official told the Guardian.

"It was a surprise for our committee when we discovered information about this letter," said Rob Sebes, a spokesman for the Dutch inquiry. "It was not sent with a normal procedure between countries – instead it was a personal message from Tony Blair to our prime minister Jan Peter Balkanende, and had to be returned and not stored in our archives. Read more.

Obama Calls SCOTUS Ruling on Campaign Spending 'Devastating'

Obama Calls SCOTUS Ruling on Campaign Spending 'Devastating'

ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports:

President Obama used his weekly address to rail against Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on corporate spending in political campaigns -- calling it a “devastating” and “powerful blow” striking at democracy that he intends to fight against.

“The United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence,” Obama said. “This ruling strikes at our democracy itself.” Read more.

"Granny D" Comments on Supreme Court's Decision Killing Campaign Finance Reform

January 21, 2010 statement from Doris “Granny D” Haddock in response to the Supreme Court’s decision today to kill campaign finance reform

Ten years ago, I walked from California to Washington, D.C. to help gather support for campaign finance reform. I used the novelty of my age (I was 90), to garner attention to the fact that our democracy, for which so many people have given their lives, is being subverted to the needs of wealthy interests, and that we must do something about it. I talked to thousands of people and gave hundreds of speeches and interviews, and, in every section of the nation, I was deeply moved by how heartsick Americans are by the current state of our politics.

Well, we got some reform bills passed, but things seem worse now than ever. Our good government reform groups are trying to staunch the flow of special-interest money into our political campaigns, but they are mostly whistling in a wind that has become a gale force of corrupting cash. Conditions are so bad that people now assume that nothing useful can pass Congress due to the vote-buying power of powerful financial interests. The health care reform debacle is but the most recent example.

The Supreme Court, representing a radical fringe that does not share the despair of the grand majority of Americans, has today made things considerably worse by undoing the modest reforms I walked for and went to jail for, and that tens of thousands of other Americans fought very hard to see enacted. So now, thanks to this Court, corporations can fund their candidates without limits and they can run mudslinging campaigns against everyone else, right up to and including election day.

Reports Dissect "Unprecedented" Spike in US Defense Spending

Reports Dissect "Unprecedented" Spike in US Defense Spending
Cite ambitious Pentagon goals, failed reforms, and weak priorities as causes

Since 1998 the Pentagon has spent more than $6.5 trillion. More than $2 trillion of this sum was above the levels set in 1998. But only half of the $2 trillion in added funds was for recent wars and military operations. Among other things, the surge in spending has allowed the Defense Department to re-inflate its workforce to Cold War levels. And almost all the expansion is contractor labor.

These are among the findings of two 18 January reports on the dynamics of recent defense spending from the Project on Defense Alternatives, a small think tank with offices in the Washington area and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

According to the reports, the boost in spending after 1998 is unmatched over a nearly 60-year period, edging out both the Reagan and the Kennedy-Johnson spending hikes. And the Obama administration, in a move likely to confound critics and supporters alike, plans to spend more on the Pentagon than any administration since 1948.

"The recent wars are only half the story," says author Carl Conetta, "And their high price tag raises as many questions as it answers." The report finds the recent wars to have cost $792,000 per deployed person per year, while the Vietnam war cost only $256,000 per person per year in today’s dollars.

Kucinich Denounces Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Case

Kucinich Denounces Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Case | Press Release

Washington D.C. (January 21, 2010) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement following the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

“Today’s decision will allow corporations to spend unlimited funds in support of political candidates. It will increase the stranglehold corporations now have over politics. There is no more effective way to concentrate even more money and power in the hands of the wealthy.

“Already, Wall Street is thriving on government largesse while America struggles with rising unemployment and foreclosures; insurance companies are preventing meaningful health care reform; and fossil fuel companies are preventing meaningful climate change legislation. The foundations of our democracy are at serious risk.

“The five-man majority has overreached considerably. The five-man majority brought up this issue of its own volition and has now legislated from the bench. The Supreme Court’s actions and decision violates 100 years of precedent as well as the Constitutional prerogative given to Congress to legislate,” said Kucinich. “In his dissent, Justice Stevens somberly remarks, ‘The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.’ Congress can hardly ignore such a stark and foreboding comment.

“Now, it is incumbent upon Congress to act. We must reclaim the democratic process and protect the voice of American citizens. If we allow corporations, many of whom are owned by foreign interests, to exert the kind of influence allowed by today’s ruling, we will have, finally and completely, abandoned Lincoln’s government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people,’” said Kucinich.

Join the Movement! Amend Our Constitution: Money Isn't Speech, Corporations Aren't Persons

"We the corporations"

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.

Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

  • Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
  • Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
  • Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

Do it now!

A Constitutional Amendment For Public Campaign Financing: Now Is The Time

A Constitutional Amendment For Public Campaign Financing: Now Is The Time
By Bill Scher | Huffington Post

Excerpt: Now the conservative Supreme Court showed its hand, and shredded our campaign finance laws, leaving our democracy even more vulnerable to special interests.

What better time to raise the stakes.

Put a constitutional amendment on the floor of the House and Senate creating a public campaign finance system banning all private money.

Dare conservatives to side with more corporate influence in our campaigns and our policymaking.

Either conservatives buckle and the amendment is passed.

Or they block it, show their sympathies, and expose their attempts at co-opting the populist fervor to be phony.

There is no better time than now. Read more.

US Security Company Offers to Perform "High Threat Terminations" and to Confront "Worker Unrest" in Haiti

Monday 18 January 2010
by: Jeremy Scahill | Rebel Reports

We saw this type of Iraq-style disaster profiteering in New Orleans and you can expect to see a lot more of this in Haiti over the coming days, weeks and months. Private security companies are seeing big dollar signs in Haiti thanks in no small part to the media hype about “looters.” After Katrina, the number of private security companies registered (and unregistered) multiplied overnight. Banks, wealthy individuals, the US government all hired private security. I even encountered Israeli mercenaries operating an armed check-point outside of an elite gated community in New Orleans. They worked for a company called Instinctive Shooting International. (That is not a joke).

Naomi Wolf: The End of America

If you haven't read the book, this will give you an overview.

Speaking Events

2015

August 27, Chicago

CHOOSE LANGUAGE

Support This Site

Donate.

Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.

 

Sponsors:

Speaking Truth to Empire

 

Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.