Corporations don't need pure food, clean air, or safe drinking water, but they control our government and elections… and the outcome is proving disastrous.
Thank you Thom for this excellent piece. Only one thing is missing: what ordinary citizen activists can do to help make a change. Here's my suggestion:
Join in the effort to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that only human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (R-WA) is the lead sponsor of the We the People Amendment which had 94 co-sponsors in the last Congress. Learn more at www.MoveToAmend.org
The right wing has been aching for decades to hold a constitutional convention
Wealthy donors, corporations, and radical far-right actors are pushing calls for an Article V Convention in states across the country to reshape our Constitution for their own benefit.
The ERA was first introduced in 1923 and passed the House and Senate in 1972. At the time of passage, Congress required three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment within seven years, although the Constitution does not impose a deadline for ratification of amendments. The 27th Amendment was ratified two centuries after it passed Congress. By 1977, 35 states had ratified the ERA, and in 1978, falling short of the required 38 states for adoption, Congress extended the time limit an additional three years. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state needed for ratification.
The hold up has been Virginia, and the time limit extension will expire on Dec 31, meanwhile we are distracted by Trump and his cult. Have you seen or heard anything from the corporate media about Virginia and the ERA? I haven't.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
All efforts are fruitless unless there is a blue wave in 2024, as well as in what are now red states.
And just not a blue wave, but a progressive blue wave, there are way too many conservaDems so called moderates in Congress.
Warren Burger warned that an Article V convention could become a “runaway convention” in which one faction could seize control of tue process to enact unwelcome changes. I could see the outcome of such a convention protecting the rights of wealthy citizens and large corporations to be heard above those of flesh and blood humans, money being treated as speech, and the only right in the bill of rights would be the second amendment.
Thom is far too modest in this piece. He mentions his book Unequal Protection, but just barely. In the book, published in 2002, Thom tells of his search of the old dusty law books and discovering the "headnote" fraud: corporate personhood has utterly no legal standing. THOM HARTMANN WAS THE FIRST TO DISCOVER THIS AND MAKE IT KNOWN. Pardon me for shouting, but the entire "Move to Amend" movement rests uniquely on Thom's work. There would be no concern about corporate personhood today if Thom hadn't raised the issue 21 years ago.
In December of 2002 I was privileged to review the book on the Common Dreams website, here: \:https://www.commondreams.org/views/2002/12/26/sing-dance-rejoice-corporate-personhood-doomed A couple of commenters, hardcore lawyers, laughed at my enthusiasm that personhood was doomed: it is "settled law," they said. (So was Roe v. Wade, btw.) But today corporate personhood is in dire jeopardy. Move to Amend is a coalition of 739 organizations, thousands and thousands of people, and the movement gains strength daily. The pendulum has swung.
....and SCOTUS has delivered us to corporate personhood. Buckley v Valeo.
Re Citizens United, was bribery involved? Should Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy have recused themselves?
Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent stated: In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
The count was five to four. Without Thomas and Kennedy, the prior law would have been affirmed. Federal law prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n , 540 U. S. 93, 203–209 (2003) . The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 (1990) . Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
Thomas has been implicated and to a certain extent, he admits taking gifts from Harlan Crow and Lennie Leo. Better they visit a grand jury than a senate committee but something is better than nothing.
Meanwhile, Kennedy's son was a loan officer at Deutschesbank, where Trump was a "customer." Did he have contact with Leo?
If they were guilty of bribery or accepted gifts in violation of Financial Disclosure should the court remedy by assuming they recused? 28 USC Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge", provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned".
IMHO even if it were not bribery or even if the financial rules did not apply, both should have recused as the appearance was and is that they had been conflicted.
I'm not a lawyer, so forgive my misuse of legal terms, but I am going to attempt to ask a theoretical question. If a local government passed a law that corporate money couldn't be used in a local election and a corporation objected and filed a lawsuit, could the local government argue that Citizens United should be reversed because it was partially based on precedence that had been based on a decision thought to have been made, but wasn't. Is a precedence based on a fallacy null?
They could argue it but would lose with the present makeup of the court. Worse now than 2010.
On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Montana Supreme Court that had upheld a Montana state law prohibiting corporations from making expenditures supporting or opposing candidates or political parties. The Court held that the Montana decision was inconsistent with the high court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
We have to admit it. There is no justice system. The system as it stands, serves to protect the powers that be, be they billionaires,, theocrats, racist whites and Clarence Thomas is a prime example of a Quisling. He has sold out his own race, for a footlocker full of silver, or maybe because he is interracially married, he thinks that he has jumped the fence, and now thinks that he is part of he power structure, when he is just a tool.
He probably lied in his confirmation hearing about letting statutes of limitations expire in age discrimination cases when he was director of the EEOC. IMHO that act was a crime.
Meanwhile he and Alito admit they apply "natural law" before the text of the Constitution. Standing alone, this should be basis for disqualification/recusal in certain cases.
Another decision around the inglorious road of legalized political bribery was the 1978 case of First National Bank v. Bellotti. The Supreme Court voided a Massachusetts law that forbade corporations to make donations to political action committees.
Historically we’ve passed an amendment every 50 years to increase voting rights: 18 year olds in the 1970’s, women in the 1920’s, and all races in the 1870’s. We are due for a new amendment. While the extreme right calls for Corporations to finally get the vote, I believe we should do the opposite and pass the We the People Amendment. Corporations aren’t people and money isn’t speech.
Roscoe Conkling was a New York senator and was one of the original drafters of the 14th Amendment. At the last minute he lied about the intent of the other framers of the amendment and changed a word "citizen" to "person". Later he become a lawyer and resigned from the Senate. He then claimed in a case which reached the Supreme Court, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), that the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" meant the drafters wanted corporations to be included, because they used the word "person."
Those corporations have got to eat also Thom! They eat up human lives in more ways than one. And they don't get thrown in prison. The perfect vehicle for a bunch of rich tyrants. It is as if this was almost all planned? Like not having a maximum income? Putting out this fire will be harder than putting out a lithium battery fire with water. We need volunteers before the corporations get the military on their side domestically. Fighting the media will be our biggest obstacle.
The correct citation is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. It is "Southern" and not "Union." Also, your quote from the discovered memo is slightly inaccurate. It should be "... we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision." starting with an ellipsis because you omitted some preceding words. Great find and great article.
Ask a group of schoolchildren to point out people amongst a collage of various images. Not one of them will point to a corporation. They certainly wouldn't point to a building, a logo, or articles of incorporation. They won't point to excessive profit margins, price gouging, or tax shelters.
The party of Death proclaims personhood begins at conceptiont, but I've never seen one of their screaming billboards declaring life to begin upon incorporation. It's almost like they know it's an insane notion. It's almost like they know people aren't quite as dumb as they'd like...
Love your point! Ask any kid! I think corporate law was a requirement 1st year Law School, and I am proud to say it defeated my "suspension of disbelief" threshold then. I can't help but reflect on the perversion of the 2d Amendment in this context. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...." Ask any kid about that.
It appears that MSNBC is finally taking him serious, but I am sure that is because he has threatened him, they are no longer normalizing Herr Hitler wannabe
It’s about time, and I wish other media outlets (I don’t include Fox) would wake up and realize that Trump is dangerous and should never exercise political power again.
Outstanding piece, as always, Thom! For those wanting to take action to abolish corporate constitutional rights (aka "corporate personhood") in all its forms, support HJR54, the We the People Amendment, https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment, organized by Move to Amend. Sign the Motion to Amend at https://www.movetoamend.org/motion to become active.
Maybe we should test to see if corporations are superior, or if human beings are superior. Currently, they are kicking our butts. We need heavy ammo and strong reinforcements. All hands on deck, now.
This is war and oppressive corporations are the enemy. We can outsmart them. It’s time for the nuclear option.
Since corporations don't die, they can't be a person. Since a corporation can't be jailed or executed they can't be a person.
That is what should be argued in the courts, but not the courts as presently staffed. Too many corporate and right wing fascists.
I am reading stuff that we shouldn't be using fascists, it is suppose to be like the boy who cried wolf, but that doesn't stop the fascists from calling us libtards, communists, socialists and even liberal hurled out like an epithetic slur.
Well, that was educational. I’d not heard of Corporate Personhood before but I sure as hell have now. Coming from an inner-city working-class neighborhood in Denver, at sixty-six and still maintaining my ties to the place and people, one can see first-hand the effect that things like CP have had over time. Likely, everyone who has lived multi-generational there have personal or family stories to tell that have real-life outcomes where the acts of corporations and politicians alike have kept the so-called American dream at bay. Census statistics show what has happened to people and their local from the late nineteen seventies when the effects of de-unionization, benefit slashing, lack of affordable housing, healthcare, no pension, etc. came knocking in the neighborhood. Thank you for that!
Congress has absolute authority over SCAMUS (Strictly Conservative Activist Magistrates of United States - formerly SCOTUS). It is imperative to the future of life on Earth that the House reign in this beyond reviled anti-democratic bribe-guzzling special-interest-pandering lot of manipulators posing as the highest authority in the land. They are not. The House determines how SCAMUS operates.
All human beings - as well as all other life forms on this planet - are undeservedly incarcerated in the hands of malicious MAGA Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House.
I don't believe for a blink that he has a molecule of courage in him. For all his obsessive religious puffery, he is a man of no morals, no character, and obviously, no principles.
I'm not holding my breath for him to lead the charge of reverting SCAMUS to SCOTUS, via the House. But, the Holiday's are upon us so perhaps an abundance of thoughts and prayers will straighten everything out.
I'm new here Thom. First read. Jerry Weiss and William Farrar put down what I would. As I asked in the intro note when I went to paid, what was the circumtance of finding that note? That's kind of up Heather's alley. A very important read. I will have to forward it to my fraternity poppin business school jivin summer internship bankin UW Madison grandson.
Sounds like you might already have a challenge breaching your grandson's "corporate veil." Immersed in peer pressure and focus on bookkeeping mechanics, he can also bask in the beautiful invulnerability which was the point to start with. "The “corporate shield” or “corporate veil” is the idea that the shareholders, officers, and directors of a corporation will not be held personally liable for the actions of the corporation." https://elrlaw.com/legal-dictionary-corporate-shield/
The sad fact is that with the SCOTUS we have now, there is no chance at all for any reform in this area to succeed, or for any progressive legislation to survive a conservative challenge. If Biden wins and the Democrats pick up seats in the Senate and retake the House, they must consider packing the Court with four additional liberal justices to restore balance, or we are toast. The simplest way to solve this problem with a more liberal Court would be to rule that the 1886 decision of the Court did NOT rule on corporate personhood and as such, all decisions based on that flawed premise are null and void. An alternate approach in the near term is to rule that all corporations, being considered 'persons', have the exact same limits placed on them as individual citizens. Each corporation, and each incorporated political arm of the corporation (including all PACs) would be limited to $2800 per year per candidate. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.
Thank you Thom for this excellent piece. Only one thing is missing: what ordinary citizen activists can do to help make a change. Here's my suggestion:
Join in the effort to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that only human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (R-WA) is the lead sponsor of the We the People Amendment which had 94 co-sponsors in the last Congress. Learn more at www.MoveToAmend.org
.
The right wing has been aching for decades to hold a constitutional convention
Wealthy donors, corporations, and radical far-right actors are pushing calls for an Article V Convention in states across the country to reshape our Constitution for their own benefit.
Common cause is fighting to stop an Art V convention https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/
The ERA was first introduced in 1923 and passed the House and Senate in 1972. At the time of passage, Congress required three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment within seven years, although the Constitution does not impose a deadline for ratification of amendments. The 27th Amendment was ratified two centuries after it passed Congress. By 1977, 35 states had ratified the ERA, and in 1978, falling short of the required 38 states for adoption, Congress extended the time limit an additional three years. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state needed for ratification.
The hold up has been Virginia, and the time limit extension will expire on Dec 31, meanwhile we are distracted by Trump and his cult. Have you seen or heard anything from the corporate media about Virginia and the ERA? I haven't.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
All efforts are fruitless unless there is a blue wave in 2024, as well as in what are now red states.
And just not a blue wave, but a progressive blue wave, there are way too many conservaDems so called moderates in Congress.
Warren Burger warned that an Article V convention could become a “runaway convention” in which one faction could seize control of tue process to enact unwelcome changes. I could see the outcome of such a convention protecting the rights of wealthy citizens and large corporations to be heard above those of flesh and blood humans, money being treated as speech, and the only right in the bill of rights would be the second amendment.
Thom is far too modest in this piece. He mentions his book Unequal Protection, but just barely. In the book, published in 2002, Thom tells of his search of the old dusty law books and discovering the "headnote" fraud: corporate personhood has utterly no legal standing. THOM HARTMANN WAS THE FIRST TO DISCOVER THIS AND MAKE IT KNOWN. Pardon me for shouting, but the entire "Move to Amend" movement rests uniquely on Thom's work. There would be no concern about corporate personhood today if Thom hadn't raised the issue 21 years ago.
In December of 2002 I was privileged to review the book on the Common Dreams website, here: \:https://www.commondreams.org/views/2002/12/26/sing-dance-rejoice-corporate-personhood-doomed A couple of commenters, hardcore lawyers, laughed at my enthusiasm that personhood was doomed: it is "settled law," they said. (So was Roe v. Wade, btw.) But today corporate personhood is in dire jeopardy. Move to Amend is a coalition of 739 organizations, thousands and thousands of people, and the movement gains strength daily. The pendulum has swung.
Thanks to Thom.
Thank you Richard, that answers my question. Thom was suggested to me recently and the name sounded familliar. Now I know why.
....and SCOTUS has delivered us to corporate personhood. Buckley v Valeo.
Re Citizens United, was bribery involved? Should Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy have recused themselves?
Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent stated: In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
The count was five to four. Without Thomas and Kennedy, the prior law would have been affirmed. Federal law prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n , 540 U. S. 93, 203–209 (2003) . The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 (1990) . Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
Thomas has been implicated and to a certain extent, he admits taking gifts from Harlan Crow and Lennie Leo. Better they visit a grand jury than a senate committee but something is better than nothing.
Meanwhile, Kennedy's son was a loan officer at Deutschesbank, where Trump was a "customer." Did he have contact with Leo?
If they were guilty of bribery or accepted gifts in violation of Financial Disclosure should the court remedy by assuming they recused? 28 USC Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge", provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned".
IMHO even if it were not bribery or even if the financial rules did not apply, both should have recused as the appearance was and is that they had been conflicted.
We have the best justice system that money can buy.
That is exactly it.
I'm not a lawyer, so forgive my misuse of legal terms, but I am going to attempt to ask a theoretical question. If a local government passed a law that corporate money couldn't be used in a local election and a corporation objected and filed a lawsuit, could the local government argue that Citizens United should be reversed because it was partially based on precedence that had been based on a decision thought to have been made, but wasn't. Is a precedence based on a fallacy null?
They could argue it but would lose with the present makeup of the court. Worse now than 2010.
On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Montana Supreme Court that had upheld a Montana state law prohibiting corporations from making expenditures supporting or opposing candidates or political parties. The Court held that the Montana decision was inconsistent with the high court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/american-tradition-partnership-inc-v-bullock/
We have to admit it. There is no justice system. The system as it stands, serves to protect the powers that be, be they billionaires,, theocrats, racist whites and Clarence Thomas is a prime example of a Quisling. He has sold out his own race, for a footlocker full of silver, or maybe because he is interracially married, he thinks that he has jumped the fence, and now thinks that he is part of he power structure, when he is just a tool.
Hopefully, Thomas is the exception, not the rule. I think the chickens will come home to roost, maybe in bribery or failure to disclose under oath.
I worked with some of his former colleagues and was in an Inn of Court with him. It's worse than even the media knows. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-clarence-thomas-lover-speaks-tv-interview/story?id=11950662
He probably lied in his confirmation hearing about letting statutes of limitations expire in age discrimination cases when he was director of the EEOC. IMHO that act was a crime.
Meanwhile he and Alito admit they apply "natural law" before the text of the Constitution. Standing alone, this should be basis for disqualification/recusal in certain cases.
I am not sure he is the exception, maybe you are thinking of judges.
I am thinking of the likes of Tim Scott, Herschel Walker, Kanye,, Candace Owens, Byron Donalds they too have jumped the fence.
With exceptions it seems that white males who interracially marry are prone to be liberals.
Black males who do the same tend to be right wingers. with exceptions of course
Another decision around the inglorious road of legalized political bribery was the 1978 case of First National Bank v. Bellotti. The Supreme Court voided a Massachusetts law that forbade corporations to make donations to political action committees.
Historically we’ve passed an amendment every 50 years to increase voting rights: 18 year olds in the 1970’s, women in the 1920’s, and all races in the 1870’s. We are due for a new amendment. While the extreme right calls for Corporations to finally get the vote, I believe we should do the opposite and pass the We the People Amendment. Corporations aren’t people and money isn’t speech.
https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment
That is how it should be.
Roscoe Conkling was a New York senator and was one of the original drafters of the 14th Amendment. At the last minute he lied about the intent of the other framers of the amendment and changed a word "citizen" to "person". Later he become a lawyer and resigned from the Senate. He then claimed in a case which reached the Supreme Court, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), that the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" meant the drafters wanted corporations to be included, because they used the word "person."
The idea of corporate personhood is repulsive to Democracy. It creates a furious response from real ‘ natural’ people.
How dare these shysters in the Courts declare this most obvious transgression to be a ‘truth ‘. It is precisely a lie.
A lie backed by a lot of garnered lies throughout the years.
And we see in today’s society that the Lie is winning.
This Lie needs to be crushed. Based on trickery , it should be held up as the ruse that it is .
It has created the situation where a traitor like Trump can gain control .
To chop it up we need to expose and defeat this lie and Trump.
Trump should not even be allowed to run for president.
Why does the 14 th amendment have so little real power ?
Your question is answered by Joan Ehrlich above.
Those corporations have got to eat also Thom! They eat up human lives in more ways than one. And they don't get thrown in prison. The perfect vehicle for a bunch of rich tyrants. It is as if this was almost all planned? Like not having a maximum income? Putting out this fire will be harder than putting out a lithium battery fire with water. We need volunteers before the corporations get the military on their side domestically. Fighting the media will be our biggest obstacle.
The correct citation is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. It is "Southern" and not "Union." Also, your quote from the discovered memo is slightly inaccurate. It should be "... we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision." starting with an ellipsis because you omitted some preceding words. Great find and great article.
Ask a group of schoolchildren to point out people amongst a collage of various images. Not one of them will point to a corporation. They certainly wouldn't point to a building, a logo, or articles of incorporation. They won't point to excessive profit margins, price gouging, or tax shelters.
The party of Death proclaims personhood begins at conceptiont, but I've never seen one of their screaming billboards declaring life to begin upon incorporation. It's almost like they know it's an insane notion. It's almost like they know people aren't quite as dumb as they'd like...
Love your point! Ask any kid! I think corporate law was a requirement 1st year Law School, and I am proud to say it defeated my "suspension of disbelief" threshold then. I can't help but reflect on the perversion of the 2d Amendment in this context. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...." Ask any kid about that.
"As Yahoo news reports this morning:
“Could a second Donald Trump presidency slide into dictatorship? "
Slide: Trump yesterday told his adulating cult, that it would become a dictatorship on Day 1
There is no doubt in my mind Trump will do exactly that if he get# back into power.
It appears that MSNBC is finally taking him serious, but I am sure that is because he has threatened him, they are no longer normalizing Herr Hitler wannabe
It’s about time, and I wish other media outlets (I don’t include Fox) would wake up and realize that Trump is dangerous and should never exercise political power again.
Les Moonves of CBS told the Board of Directors in 2016, that Trump was bad for America, but great for CBS and he was met by a group chuckle.
There goes the chance of the media to expose Trump, especially Fox lite which you know as CNN.
The only reason that MSNBC is not playing the both sides game, is because Trump has directly threatened MSNBC, on day 1 if he is elected.
Believe me, CNN, CBS ABC , NBC have fallen into line.
This makes sense.
Outstanding piece, as always, Thom! For those wanting to take action to abolish corporate constitutional rights (aka "corporate personhood") in all its forms, support HJR54, the We the People Amendment, https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment, organized by Move to Amend. Sign the Motion to Amend at https://www.movetoamend.org/motion to become active.
Maybe we should test to see if corporations are superior, or if human beings are superior. Currently, they are kicking our butts. We need heavy ammo and strong reinforcements. All hands on deck, now.
This is war and oppressive corporations are the enemy. We can outsmart them. It’s time for the nuclear option.
Since corporations don't die, they can't be a person. Since a corporation can't be jailed or executed they can't be a person.
That is what should be argued in the courts, but not the courts as presently staffed. Too many corporate and right wing fascists.
I am reading stuff that we shouldn't be using fascists, it is suppose to be like the boy who cried wolf, but that doesn't stop the fascists from calling us libtards, communists, socialists and even liberal hurled out like an epithetic slur.
Call 'em as you see 'em.
Well, that was educational. I’d not heard of Corporate Personhood before but I sure as hell have now. Coming from an inner-city working-class neighborhood in Denver, at sixty-six and still maintaining my ties to the place and people, one can see first-hand the effect that things like CP have had over time. Likely, everyone who has lived multi-generational there have personal or family stories to tell that have real-life outcomes where the acts of corporations and politicians alike have kept the so-called American dream at bay. Census statistics show what has happened to people and their local from the late nineteen seventies when the effects of de-unionization, benefit slashing, lack of affordable housing, healthcare, no pension, etc. came knocking in the neighborhood. Thank you for that!
Congress has absolute authority over SCAMUS (Strictly Conservative Activist Magistrates of United States - formerly SCOTUS). It is imperative to the future of life on Earth that the House reign in this beyond reviled anti-democratic bribe-guzzling special-interest-pandering lot of manipulators posing as the highest authority in the land. They are not. The House determines how SCAMUS operates.
All human beings - as well as all other life forms on this planet - are undeservedly incarcerated in the hands of malicious MAGA Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House.
I don't believe for a blink that he has a molecule of courage in him. For all his obsessive religious puffery, he is a man of no morals, no character, and obviously, no principles.
I'm not holding my breath for him to lead the charge of reverting SCAMUS to SCOTUS, via the House. But, the Holiday's are upon us so perhaps an abundance of thoughts and prayers will straighten everything out.
I'm new here Thom. First read. Jerry Weiss and William Farrar put down what I would. As I asked in the intro note when I went to paid, what was the circumtance of finding that note? That's kind of up Heather's alley. A very important read. I will have to forward it to my fraternity poppin business school jivin summer internship bankin UW Madison grandson.
Sounds like you might already have a challenge breaching your grandson's "corporate veil." Immersed in peer pressure and focus on bookkeeping mechanics, he can also bask in the beautiful invulnerability which was the point to start with. "The “corporate shield” or “corporate veil” is the idea that the shareholders, officers, and directors of a corporation will not be held personally liable for the actions of the corporation." https://elrlaw.com/legal-dictionary-corporate-shield/
We had a dificult visit at his birthday last July.
The sad fact is that with the SCOTUS we have now, there is no chance at all for any reform in this area to succeed, or for any progressive legislation to survive a conservative challenge. If Biden wins and the Democrats pick up seats in the Senate and retake the House, they must consider packing the Court with four additional liberal justices to restore balance, or we are toast. The simplest way to solve this problem with a more liberal Court would be to rule that the 1886 decision of the Court did NOT rule on corporate personhood and as such, all decisions based on that flawed premise are null and void. An alternate approach in the near term is to rule that all corporations, being considered 'persons', have the exact same limits placed on them as individual citizens. Each corporation, and each incorporated political arm of the corporation (including all PACs) would be limited to $2800 per year per candidate. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.