Today’s lead piece echoes what I have said long before the Extreme Court insulted our freedom with the Citizens United decision. It just does so better than I have done.
Citizens United v. FEC, the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections is only the most recent step in this process. There will be more. But the shocking decision may be sufficient to galvanize a political movement that can change the rules and ensure our democracy.
We can save our country by adding eight words to the fundamental law of the land, the US Constitution. "Corporations are not persons." "Money is not speech."
Such a development is not without precedent. Once before a political movement has changed the Constitution to nurture democracy. The populist uprising of the late 20th century led to the passage, in rapid succession of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that allowed for an income tax, the 17th Amendment, ratified the same year that required the direct election of Senators and in 1920 the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.
A campaign to strip corporations of personhood would have a similar populist and popular appeal. A recent Quinnipiac poll reveals a whopping 79 percent public disapproval of the Court’s ruling. A Washington Post-ABC News poll puts the figure even higher at 81 percent. And as Dan Eggen of the Post writes, "The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent)."
But win or lose, a campaign against corporate personhood would allow us to regain control of a narrative we lost in 1980 when Ronald Reagan declared in his Inaugural Address, "government is the problem" and initiated a process that has resulted in the greatest concentration of private wealth and power in American history.
People may not know exactly what Goldman Sachs is, but they know it is not a person. A person doesn’t have unlimited life or limited liability. A person is responsible for her decisions. If she makes a decision that kills or maims people she will go to jail. If a CEO makes such a decision she, at worst, receives a golden parachute.
Unlike a real person, a corporation lacks a conscience. It is guided neither by ethics nor morality but rather by laws that required its Boards to elevate the maximization of profits above all other concerns.
A real person is an independent actor, subject to many influences that affect how he votes. Warren Buffett, for example, thinks it is in his and society’s best interest for him to be required to pay more taxes. A corporation that made this decision could be taken to court by its stockholders.
In his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith’s first, and in his own mind more important work than Wealth of Nations, he outlined his view of the institutions that make men virtuous. He focused on the inherent human qualities of gratitude and sympathy and empathy that lead to a merging of our self-interest with the public good. To Adam Smith, that was the real invisible hand. A corporation lacks sympathy or empathy although occasionally it might express gratitude in the form of increased financial contributions to politicians who do its bidding…
Inserted from <Alternet>
I disagree with this author only on one small point. Corporate financial contributions to politicians who do their bidding are not expressions of gratitude. They are investments in the continuation of the current climate of socialism for the rich only that maximize corporate profit at taxpayer expense.
I won’t deceive myself, or you, by imagining such a campaign can succeed anytime soon. However, there are times when tilting at a windmill is the best strategy, simply because it is the right thing to do. If would also serve to mobilize independent voters to oppose the GOP’s extreme corporate agenda.
The citation is only the first page of a truly magnificent eight page article. I strongly encourage you to click through and read it in its entirety. But finish reading and commenting on today’s articles here first, of course. 😀
13 Responses to “8 Words That Could Save Our Country”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Tom
Who’s taking up the challenge to ad those 8 little words. I doubt Obama has the stomach for it. Speaker Pelosi has the conviction but is it on her agenda .. Right now is the time to act on this while we still have majority in the House and Senate.
Beside a written campaign, how can we force their hand. It was President Johnson speaking with Rev.King who once said something like …If you want change,you have to make me do it. In other words help him help you. Hmmm maybe that was FDR….;)
Don Quixote De la Mancha.
Tim, to be meaningful, it will have to be grass roots. By suggesting it, we’re taking the first step.
If you want to change the constitution remember that rapid is relavent and at each step in the process the corporations will be spending big money to hamper the effort. I would first like truth in advertising law that requires the CEO and corporation that gave the money to what ever organization to advertise to be named.
Interestingly enough this is NOT the first time 80% of wealth was concentrated in the upper 1% of the population. The last time was beginning in 1927 through 1933. We all know what happened in ’29 and who came along in ’33 with some taxes on business and banks that started to even the fields a bit.
Mark, I have no allusions that we will succeed in changing the Constitution. But attempting to do so might help keep the GOP out of power long enough to replace a couple of the GOP extremists on the Court.
While Warren Buffett may be one of the savviest investors on the planet, he spoke in favor of GS the other day. Bet he’s wishing he could take that back now.
Bring on the amendment!
It has always been the challenge for advocates of the public good to put their cause into bumper sticker sized phrases. Usually our case is nuanced with shades of gray. This is the clear message to incessantly hammer. People should put up signs with those words in their yard. Someone should go into business making those signs, by the millions. How about getting people in communities to pool money for billboards on the highways?
And also, while we’re at it, how about we do the same with signs saying “Indict the War Criminals” and “Arrest the Torturers”?
This IS our cause. This IS our revolution, This IS the way to restore democracy. This IS the best way to fend off totalitarianism.
We MUST exercise our limited free speech. Otherwise we shall surely lose it.
Gopod article, and the comments were equally insightful. Diane
..whoops, that should have read GOOD – sorry…..
Thanks, Diane. 🙂
Good post. This is definitely a case for “tilting at windmills.” The campaign itself, no matter how long it takes, serves the purpose of keeping this issue in the spotlight 24/7. Like what the Republicans are doing with health care reform — they know they can’t repeal it or overturn it but they want to keep it burning in the public consciousness until November. And we need to keep “Corporations are not persons. Money is not speech” burning in the public consciousness for months, years.
And Dave makes a good point. For once, there’s finally a “liberal” issue that can be simplified and crystallized into soundbites and millions of bumperstickers and yard signs.
Tom, that’s exactly how I see it. Don’t forget signs for demonstrations.
Just dinking to see if any links to photos will actually show up as photos:
http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp236/Keefers_/Keefers_Animated%20Flowers/Keefers_AnimatedFlowers301-3.gif
Sorry! I don’t know how to provide that capability.