We the Corporate People

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC handed a victory over to corporations that they have been pursuing for over a century. In a 5-4 decision the court found that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence national, state and local elections. Of course, unions can only generate revenue from the collection of dues from its members while corporations exist solely to generate revenue and profit.

The decision was only possible due to an earlier decision, by the same body, that money is a form of free speech, further disadvantaging the poor. However, the damage of this latest decision goes far deeper than is visible on the surface. With their newly granted power, corporations have the ability the hold the power forever and to crush anyone that attempts to limit or reverse it by purchasing the election of friendly candidates.

Worse is the fact that most corporations have become global in their makeup and often do business and even partner with countries that do not have this country's best interest at heart. In fact, due to the ability of international corporations to shield their identities when doing business globally it is possible for enemies of our country to be able to influence our elections because of the court's decision.

More disappointing regarding the decision is those who are in agreement with it. I was shocked to hear Jonathan Turley, Law professor at George Washington University, agreed with the court's decision as well as Glenn Greenwald who defended the decision in his blog at Salon.com. Finally, the ACLU will not take a position in opposition to the Supreme Court's attack on US elections.

I have strong feelings about this issue and believe it must be addressed in the strongest terms. Primarily, I believe the foundation of the court's decision is their recognition of corporations as people. Corporations had attempted for years to persuade the Supreme Court to recognize them as a person and extend to them the rights enumerated under the 14th amendment which came into existence after the Civil War to address the newly freed slave population. At the time one of the largest corporations was the railroad which was using its money and power to influence elected officials and push for beneficial legislation in Congress. However, they had been unsuccessful in convincing the Justices, so the railroad brought a steady stream of cases to the Supreme Court claiming the rights of a person under the Constitution in hopes of wearing them down.

From Wikipedia:

The 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, though it dealt with taxation of railroad properties, became most notable for the obiter
dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Obiter Dicta are the head notes preceding every case, a
short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as
outlining the main facts and arguments. The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis,
wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to
these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion
itself.

Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.

C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison C. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue

In answer to the question posed above, also from Wikipedia:

John Chandler Bancroft Davis (December 22, 1822 – December 27, 1907), commonly known as Bancroft Davis, was an American lawyer, judge, diplomat, and president of Newburgh and New York Railway Company!

Because of the Santa Clara case corporations have argued numerous cases before the court claiming Davis' head note as legal precedent and have been mostly successful in gaining greater recognition as a person with Constitutional protections. But, until Chief Justice Roberts, the high court refused to overturn 125 years of legislation limiting a corporation's ability to unfairly influence elections with their vast financial resources.

In Glenn Greenwalds comment section to his post about the Supreme Court’s decision, he asked one commenter the following questions:

So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:

1. Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

2. Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?

3. How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?

The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?

4. Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?

5. Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism? What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?

Thought provoking as they seem each question assumes a premise which may be faulty. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the existence of corporations was nearly non-existent. The founders were not concerned with granting rights to anyone except the citizens of this brand new nation and they certainly did not want to open this newly formed government to the corrupting influence of British wealth concentrated in businesses like the East India Company. You'll remember this company from one of their many products they were forcing the colonies to buy exclusively from them and enforced by the King. The product was tea and the result of that action was the impromptu flavoring of Boston Harbor. In fact, the founders warned of the danger of allowing the concentration of powers in large companies because of the abuses they witnessed at the hands of companies like the East India Company and others.

Since the decision the President and Congress have discussed how they can limit the damage of the Supreme Court's irresponsible action, but they are only attempting to alleviate the harm in very peripheral ways. Until and unless they pass legislation specifically recognizing that a corporation is NOT a person and does not have the same rights as citizens the relentless assault on democracy by the excessively privileged corporate elite will not cease.

Currently, the Republicans and their big business lobbyists are fighting to block the creation of a department of consumer protection while corporations themselves have a position in the president's inner circle at a cabinet level position known as the department of Commerce. Why is that?

The Constitution opens with the sentence "We the People", not “We the Corporation” and establishes the laws and liberties our new democracy was founded upon. That’s why “We the People” need a department of consumer protection and we do not need a department of commerce. In fact, “We the People” should insist on a separation of commerce and state the same way religion is (or used to be) banned from the working of government.

No, I’m sorry Mr. President, but thanks for playing

Carl, what do we have for a parting gift for President Obama?

Well Peter, President Obama needed to answer two of three questions correctly, but only got one.

Will there be a Public Option? The Public Option was included albeit shrouded in distracting verbiage about exchanges and other programs and described as merely one of many choices available to consumers of healthcare. He doubled down on requirements to be placed on insurance companies by demanding their practice of denying coverage for existing conditions be criminalized. He got that one right, though just barely.

What deal did the White House make with Big Pharma? The deal the President made with the Pharmaceutical Bigwigs was not even mentioned in his speech and therefore left many Americans asking for the details and why the White House felt it had to be kept secret. No credit for this answer.

What is Healthcare Reform all about? President Obama’s answer to the final question demonstrated his misreading of the healthcare debate and its importance to the Party that put him in power.

As he stated in his speech, "To my Progressive friends, healthcare reform has always been about ending insurance abuses and making coverage affordable to everyone".

This merely trades one sin for another. Insurance companies will temporarily avoid major abuses to get millions of additional policy holders who will be forced to purchase coverage. The answer most Americans wanted to hear is that reform has always been about making and keeping people healthy! Every other advanced country on Earth mandates that healthcare providers must first demonstrate that the care they provide is working by making their patients healthier rather than merely lining the pockets of the drug and healthcare industries. Obama’s "Progressive friends" want universal healthcare for all citizens under a single payer system which is the only way costs can ever be controlled. They want healthcare providers to be rewarded or penalized for actual results their patients experienced from their care and not for the profits they generate for healthcare profiteers. But, in lieu of single payer, they were willing to go with a ROBUST Public Option and this is not it

So as a parting gift, the President will receive Primary challenges to be the Party’s candidate for President in the 2012 election. He will also receive Little to No cooperation from the Liberals he threw under the bus. He will get more challenges from the Left to replace Congressional moderates and corporate enablers that claim to be "business friendly" when they are in fact "anti consumer"

It shouldn’t be too surprising that a graduate of the university that spawned the likes of Milton Friedman would not be able to see any point of view except that offered through the prism of corporate doctrine and disaster capitalism. What is a surprise is that Progressives have not yet learned this. That they still hold out hope that corporatists like Obama will ever do anything that doesn’t benefit profit over all.

Where's the Public Option?

The failure of the Obama administration to include the public option in the healthcare reform bill is simply not acceptable. It’s unbelievable that President Obama is prepared to waste all this time and political capital to wind up with a bill that fails to satisfy the most basic needs for reform and will ultimately result in his being a one term presidency. No subsequent action will mitigate having failed the American people on the healthcare issue.

Of course, the president has had the option to push this legislation through by standing by his own words on the campaign trail and by not wasting precious time seeking bipartisanship that was never going to be. Instead, he and other Democrats have capitulated on issue after issue because it has never been their intent to upset the insurance, hospital and pharmaceutical industries by passing meaningful reform. And if that is the end result of the fiasco we have been witnessing since January then those of us who worked so hard to put this administration into power must be just as prepared to replace it.

Listening to the crap being passed off as analysis of the surrender of the public option is enough to sicken the heartiest of souls. An endless hoard of talking heads and pundits, supposedly from both ends of the political spectrum, chatter on about how Democrats would be crazy to not pass a bill just because the public option is being dropped. How Liberals need to see this as a success because something is being done to address healthcare. These are words of appeasement by those who never had the stomach for the fight and who don't have to worry about healthcare.

Just what is the president thinking? Each day more psychopathic assholes show up at his town hall meetings packing heat and spewing hatred, any one of them capable of doing physical harm to the him or his family. Does he believe that whimpiness and capitulation on his part elevates their opinion of him? Do the Democrats in Congress think this? Of course not.

What we are witnessing is a tightrope act being performed by President Obama, his cabinet and Democratic members of Congress to make it appear that they are conscientiously working on our behalf for healthcare reform while making sure not to piss off the lobbyists and healthcare executives that fill their coffers with campaign contributions and other bennies. At the same time we are seeing the Republicans teeing off on Democrats with lies, mis-information, orchestrated protests and as much noise and misdirection as they can generate. The whole time the Republicans are secure in the knowledge that the lobbyists and healthcare executives would prefer them back in power because they are more completely owned and subject to their control.

What would be refreshing is for President Obama to demonstrate his depth of understanding of the Constitution by conducting his actions and those of his administration in accordance with that document. It would be exceptional to see the re-emergence of Constitutional government be the legacy of the first African American president. It would be historic for this president to lead this country back from the reactionary abyss by standing against the forces that are doing everything in their power to ensure his failure. It would be awe inspiring to have a president who understands all of this and chooses not to concede to the corporate thugs seeking absolute power, but opts to steer his ship of state away from the radicalism and hate driven stupidity coming from the Right. The country is in as bad of a state now as it was when FDR stood against the same cabal of power hungry tyrants and put the country back on the path of justice, morality and constitutionality. If ever there was a time for a great leader to emerge, this is it, but as each day goes by and each new capitulation takes place, as each new promise of change is rescinded, as each pledge of correcting the errors of the past administration is ignored, the American people are realizing that we have seen this movie before and we didn't like it any better the first time.

It is now time to prepare contingencies for the inevitable collapse of the Democrats to the pressures of the healthcare industry lobbyists. The idea has been put forward to push for a referendum that would allow individual voters to determine whether members of Congress should enjoy healthcare and retirement benefits when they will not support similar benefits for the people paying for theirs. This approach holds much promise because it would appeal to the Conservative haters of big government and taxes.

A second idea is to Outsource our healthcare requirements to countries that offer better care to their citizens at a much better price. OK, at first glance this may seem implausible, but consider how major corporations got away with it when they shifted American manufacturing jobs to under-developed nations to avoid labor costs and union protections. Certainly, we have as good of a reason for doing so and I’m sure when it was first conceived in some corporate board room many thought it to be too radical and un-American to succeed. Yet, they did succeed and our country’s economy has suffered greatly as a result.

So, why not open negotiations with Canada, England, France, the Nordic countries and other nations with greater respect for the citizens than our Congress has for us? Why not issue Requests For Proposals (RFP) to these nations and get cost estimates for them to integrate interested American citizens into their healthcare system by diverting some of our taxes to whichever country makes the best offer, then have them recruit medical professionals and facilities within our borders to comply with their policies.

Many will say this is not feasible and too many obstacles threaten to kill the idea. I say that we should know by now that Everything is negotiable just like the integrity of our elected officials

Enough is Enough

Recent revelations including the Pentagon’s use of retired military officers as spokesmen for the war that they personally profited from, the Congressional report that the administration absolutely lied to the American people and to Congress to push us into war with Iraq, the new book by former Press Secretary Scott McClellen which documents the fact that Bush himself had a hand in the outing of a covert agent of the CIA and now the report “Broken Laws, Broken Lives” on medical evidence of torture by the US conclusively proving that the United States government used torture on detainees, have fused to form an unassailable case for impeaching both Bush and Cheney. The only thing preventing impeachment and continuing to protect the President and Vice President is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

There are others in Congress who were elected by Democratic majorities in their home states who now represent the Republican agenda through the miracle of corporate munificence. These Blue Dog “Democrats” are so in name only and are ruinous to the Progressive core of our Party, but this treacherous faction of Democrats are merely cheerleaders for the Speaker and her refusal to do her job. Pelosi alone holds the key to success or failure for any legislation regarding impeachment and she has long ago stated that the option was off the table. By itself that statement should be grounds for her removal from office, if only we had that option, but together with her knowledge and approval of Bush’s torture program it makes her an accomplice to his crime.

The citizens of this country can no longer wait for action by its elected officials and have begun to initiate necessary actions on their own. The Massachusetts School of Law is planning the necessary steps to pursue the guilty members of the Bush administration for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Individual across the nation have taken steps to force local governments to acknowledge Bush and Cheney as criminals and even seek to arrest them if found within their jurisdiction. Internationally, Bush administration officials, CIA officers and others connected to this administration past and present, are being sought to answer for crimes conducted against their citizens and against humanity.

It is no longer permissible for Speaker Pelosi to run interference for Bush and company without herself being held criminally complicit. She has no legal foundation for not beginning the process of impeachment by sponsoring and prioritizing Rep. Kucinich’s articles of impeachment. It is similarly imperative that the United States government get out in front on the prosecution of this administration that is sure to take the spot light on the world stage once Bush leaves office and the US rejoins the International Criminal Court Treaty.

Uprising

An uprising is exactly what this country needs if this war is ever to end. David Sirota's new book does a great job in outlining what an uprising is, how it applies in our current situation and the mentality and attitude required of the participants. Specifically, the unapologetic demands required by the grass roots movement to convince incumbents of the need for their compliance with the citizen majority instead of their usual capitulation to the corporate special interests that rule their worlds.

Here in Connecticut there is a particular sensitivity and lingering blemish on the souls of Democratic voters who have been bitterly disappointed by the junior Senator, Joe Lieberman. His deception of his loyal supporters, alliance with Karl Rove and other extremists on the Right, embrace of Republican cross-over voters, and total relinquishment of his integrity in support of George Bush's Iraq war, have culminated in a tangible hatred of the once trusted official. Lieberman exudes indifference towards his (former) supporters while displaying an attitude of incontestable rectitude about his worldview which includes continued and continuing war in the Middle East. Couple this with his shameless and transparent support and constant companionship to the only surviving war advocate candidate and Connecticut voters have every right to distrust and despise the Senator.

In spite of this, Senator Lieberman Chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees at the pleasure of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Chairmanship posts are highly regarded positions normally awarded to respected Party members with seniority status. Of course, Lieberman renounced his Party membership when the Connecticut Democratic Party elected Ned Lamont in the Primaries in 2006, so Lieberman ran on the CFL (Connecticut For Lieberman) Party ticket and lost his seniority and position within the Democratic Party. Why has Harry Reid passed over loyal current Party members to award the Committee Chairmanship to a defector?

As much as we have focused attention on repugnant Republicans and their scandalous actions in this administration, as well as the last, we need to also recognize those Democrats who have shamed themselves and our Party and make them uncomfortably aware of our displeasure. This includes the votes by Connecticut Representatives to condemn MoveOn.org for expressing a Constitutionally protected opinion, which was both fair and correct, regarding the report by General Petraeus to Congress. Most of these individuals accepted campaign donations of thousands of dollars and other support from MoveOn, yet they voted to condemn a statement questioning the accuracy of the report to Congress by an unapologetic partisan of the administration which, frankly, paled in comparison to much of the rhetoric heard from the Republicans both in venom and dishonesty. Where is the apology due to MoveOn by Murphy, DeLauro, Larson and Courtney?

If an Uprising is at hand, let's get our own house in order before we take on the world.

Lieberman's Dilemma

As disappointing as John McCain’s behavior seems to be we can at least take heart in the knowledge that his most outspoken supporter, the moral and ethical Joseph Lieberman, will no longer be promoting his candidacy. Joe’s strong moral fiber and sense of justice will obviously prevent him from allowing the elevation to the highest office a man whose “infidelity must be viewed as immoral, disgraceful and damaging to the country”. At least that is how Lieberman described the conduct of one William Jefferson Clinton in exactly the same situation McCain now finds himself, and Clinton was a member of his own Party at the time.

With such unshakable principles and solid moral values it is unimaginable that our once Democratic Senator will possibly continue to support his new friend, John McCain. His willingness to break ranks with his own Party over Clinton’s sexual exploits demonstrates Lieberman’s integrity, wholesomeness and advanced sense of decency that he applies to himself and others.

So, if Joe is morally prevented from supporting McCain, who will he throw his support to that can meet his high ethical standards? Don’t forget, Joe has a war to win and defense contracts to fulfill and the entire Middle East to conquer, but he must accomplish this while only supporting sexually moral individuals. Who can he find that will order more American forces to their deaths and the continued carnage and murder of innocent Iraqis while remaining faithful to their spouse? Who, in any political Party shares Joe’s pious view that unceasing butchery, slaughter, bloodshed and atrocities pale in comparison to sexual infidelity?

Somewhere out in the political landscape there must exist a paragon of Old Testament virtues with whom Joe can enter into a sacred covenant of warfare and faithfulness. Party affiliation is not an impediment for Lieberman. He proved that when he defied his own Party in the 06 mid-term elections, accepting Karl Rove’s assistance that got him re-elected by Connecticut Republicans (and some dim-witted Democrats). The only matter of any importance to Lieberman is the perpetuation of armed conflicts in the Middle East relentlessly prosecuted by a Commander in Chief that can be relied upon to keep his dick in his trousers when not with his wife.

Who won the Debate, the Candidates or the Media?

Last night’s debate began by focusing on the dust up between Clinton and Obama, leaving Edwards on the sidelines where the Main Stream Media has wanted him throughout this campaign. His only participation in that early discussion was framed by NBC so that viewers would see him as the “establishment white male” against the new and progressive ethnic and female candidates.

As for the racial controversy spurred on by both Clinton and Obama staffers, thankfully they seem to have checked the rhetoric and focused on issues instead of each other.

Edwards, for his part, sincerely praised the Democratic Party for being the Party of diversity and said he was proud to be in a Party that has offered an African American and a female as serious presidential candidates. He did not express any disappointment or resentment for being in what some consider a disadvantaged position, rather he displayed gratitude for the opportunity to openly discuss his views for people to compare with the other candidates.

The most important issue that came out of last night’s debate for me was the evidence of the media’s usurpation of the electoral process. The day of the debate saw one of the originally invited participants uninvited followed by a court battle that resulted in a ruling that NBC must include Congressman Kucinich or the court would block the debate. The judgment was appealed and since no appellate decision was made by the time of the debate NBC had effectively overturned the decision of the first court and inflicted their judgment of which candidates are viable on the American public.

The debate was hosted by NBC and moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Williams has said he feels it is his duty to listen daily to Rush Limbaugh, one of the most egregious of the Right wing broadcasters. Russert’s show, Meet the Press, was identified by Vice President Dick Cheney’s press secretary as the one place they go to when Cheney needs to go on air and they can “control the message”. Russert has also publicly stated that he considers all conversations with politicians “off the record” unless agreed to in advance, which is the antithesis of good journalism.

The networks and cable news channels all want to host their own debate and the candidates have cooperated with the exception of the Democrats refusing to debate on the Fox News Channel because they are viewed as completely partisan and all but an official outlet of the White House. By hosting the debates the media channels have been enabled to frame the issues to their own perception which has greatly favored Republicans.

Finally, the campaign season itself is much longer than it has been in the past and the direct beneficiaries are not candidates or the public, but the media who has gained far greater influence, even control over the process. As a result of that influence the majority of Americans, who had been prepared to remove Bush and the Republican Party from office and give the Democrats an opportunity, are being subjected to more debates and more analysis which allows the media to structure the arguments and then interpret for the viewers what was said. This has had the effect of trying to legitimize Republican chances in the election and artificially improve their odds against the Democratic candidate.