2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMsg. from Robert Reich re expected follow-up Supreme Court decision to Citizens United ruling:
Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)
<< Any day now, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its follow-up decision to the notorious Citizens United ruling. And when they do, we need to be ready.
A bad decision in McCutcheon v. FEC would give even more control of our elections to the wealthiest 1 percent, inviting rich donors to pour millions of dollars into federal campaigns. When the decision happens, we're taking to the streets. Will you join us?
...........................................
Whatever happens, the need for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics has never been clearer. We also need a new way to pay for campaigns so elected officials are beholden to voters, not their big donors. And we need better disclosure so we know where the money is coming from. We can't take back our democracy unless we do it together. Find an event near you and join us!
...........................................
Whenever the decision comes, we'll host a special telephone briefing within a couple of days to fill you, our members and supporters, in on the ruling and its implications. I hope you'll be able to join us; if things go as badly as we fear, we'll all have plenty of work to do.
Robert Reich and the rest of
the team at Common Cause >>
http://www.commoncause.org
I am sure many DUers have received this same message from Robert Reich.
I am just trying to reach a larger number of Democrats.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
drm604
(16,230 posts)Do you have a link to the full message, or someplace that we can go to to find out how to help?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Robert Reich is one of the top executives. Here's the link:
http://www.commoncause.org
They are involved in several projects. One can contact them and ask for direct information.
Thanks for your interest.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
http://pol.moveon.org/amend/
https://secure3.convio.net/engage/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=6731
I'm sure there are more sites working to stop this travesty
Wolf-Pac.com
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)
aggiesal
(10,804 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
loudsue
(14,087 posts)They are soooo fucking up our country.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)of and philosophical understanding behind the Bill of Rights.
Now, a lot of atheists may object to what I am going to say, but the idea behind our Bill of Rights is that the rights protected by it were not given to us by human beings or by our government. The rights listed there, and especially in the First Amendment are God-given, fundamental rights, natural rights that precede government. They are innate to us when we are created and accompany us when we are born. Several of our Founding Fathers were deists, not Christian in the sense we understand the word today, but they did believe strongly in the idea that men were endowed with rights by their Creator. (See the Declaration of Independence below.)
Corporations are created by law. Humans like other animals are not created by law but by God or nature or through the act of insemination involving male and female human genetic material not a state law.
The creation of a human being, even if accomplished thanks to a laboratory test tube, is a mysterious event, a miracle if you will. Even if our understanding of reproduction and the human genome advances to the point that we can create humans in a laboratory, they still will be differentiated from corporations in that humans can only be created from human cells, natural cells.
And yes, dear Supreme Court, there is something unique about human beings, something that corporations and computers can imitate or use, but not create, not thus far.
Corporations are a means through which communities of humans can organize themselves in accordance with laws that are agreed to and written by humans. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, corporations are a great way to organize businesses, to encourage investment and risk-taking. The corporate form relieves individual investors of legal, moral and financial responsibility for debts beyond the extent of their investment.
Human beings are responsible for their debts and mistakes.
And therefore, human beings are entitled to form governments. Corporations are not entitled to form governments because they are by definition irresponsible, lifeless, soulless things. They do not even rise to the level of plant- or animal-life, much less human life.
Corporations think only the thoughts that their human owners allow them to think. Humans are responsible for their own thoughts.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court generally claim to be a religious bunch. Why do they insult God's creation of man by equating a state's passage of a law entitling citizens to create lifeless, soulless business entities with God's creation of life?
Remember this?
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
I repeat: corporations are a great way to organize businesses, to encourage investment and risk-taking.
But corporations are not people and should not be recognized as such by the Supreme Court. It is an embarrassing travesty.
And for the religious on the Supreme Court, I should think it is a blasphemy.
What's next? I ask those members of the Supreme Court who personally oppose homicides of real humans: Do you also oppose homicides of corporations including buy-outs and takeovers, etc.?
Do you really believe that corporations are people? Because I don't think you do. Corporations are not humans, do not have the rights humans have and should stay out of the election process entirely. It is particularly troubling to think that corporations could be specifically created to meddle in the very human endeavor of self-government. What self could a corporation govern? Corporations are governed by board of directors. They have no right to participate in human self-government at any level.
nikto
(3,284 posts)But,
sensible thought is useless to the oligarchy.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)Hear! Hear! Hear! Hear! Hear!
You are such a good teacher on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Thank you so much! 
Wounded Bear
(64,324 posts)That takes the "God" thing out of it, while still emphasizing that humans are natural beings, while corporations are, by definition, constructs of man and thus inferior. Or they should be. That's kind of what I got from my readings of Thomas Paine, IMHO an unappreciated "founding father."
defacto7
(14,162 posts)as I understand it, was a compromise between those who wanted "...that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights..." and those that wanted "...that they are endowed by God...". A fierce battle ensued that could have had ugly consequences, so the unspecific "creator" was added as an appeasement under pressure. I wouldn't put much more weight on it than that. It's the old story of 18th century politics.
I appreciate the rest of your point though.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Which one? The mother or the father?
greymattermom
(5,807 posts)isn't Mitt Romney a murderer? That's one thing I never understood.
ctsnowman
(1,904 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The concept of corporations is a creation of humans. The idea was to encourage progress that some amount of freedom from liability would be allowed to encourage risk taking. This concept doesnt mean that all control, all liability of corporations is waived. And the Constitution does not apply to the concept of corporations. Humans control corporations and can limit them as they see fit.
Not to take away from anything you said but I dont believe in Theism or Deism. I dont believe there was a "creator" in the common sense. But I do believe that as there are certain rights that must be accepted to live in human societies. These basic rights are essential to maintain human societies.
Bottom line is that corporations are creations of humans and are to be controlled by humans and are not covered by the Constitution.
Excellent post. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)freedom from liability. They do encourage risk-taking and therefore innovation and creativity in our economy.
Regardless of what we think about theism or deism, it is likely that the majority of our Founding Fathers believed that we have inalienable rights granted by our Creator not man. I believe in a creative force that I would call God. But that is personal. What I was driving at was the likely intent of the men who incorporated and supported the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.
Some of them were theists. Some were deists. There may have been atheists (always are if people are honest) but the belief was that these rights which the Bill of Rights bars the government from taking away from us (Congress shall pass no law . . . .) were part of our birthright has human beings and not something that any human had or has the right to take away from us. In the light of the NSA spying on our personal correspondence, I would like to mention that the Fourth Amendment is among these inalienable rights which no government has any authority to take from us.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for a very specific reason. Us humans can change the controls on corporations or kill them as we see fit. The Constitution does not apply to the concept of Corporations. The SCOTUS effectively changed the Constitution.
I agree that we have inalienable rights but just dont agree that they were given to us by a god. I think I believe in Einstein's God.
I wrote this post not to counter anything you said but mainly to help solidify it in my own mind.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The theological underpinnings support the idea that the inalienable rights are universal. In fact, we should not just understand them to apply to us. The rights are universal. But the Constitution applies only to the restraint on our government's right to take those rights away from us.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I recommend it if you havent yet read it.
I'd be willing to protest the ruling if it goes against the interests of our people. I suggest doing so outside the offices of our representatives to the house. Offer the opportunity for them/Compel them to go on the record.
tclambert
(11,193 posts)on our political campaigns. I mean, think about it, how could millions in anonymous money from greedy, selfish interests possibly compromise the impervious consciences of our elected representatives? Surely they will always put the good of the people ahead of raising money for their campaigns. Oh, you who don't know the moral strength of our congress members might suspect that money could influence them, but five Supreme Court Justices say you're wrong. And they went to law school, so they must be really, really smart.
Wounded Bear
(64,324 posts)
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)defacto7
(14,162 posts)that they will give corporate entities less leverage than more? IOW, are we sure they are going to strengthen or broaden corporate control of government through less financial restrictions?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Warpy
(114,615 posts)
You know they're just as shocked at this as Greenspan was when he found out fellow bankers would take advantage of degregulation to turn to crime!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If such little is actually getting to campaigns it just is an inefficient use of money.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
We need to hold every candidate for every office to a promise to support a constitutional amendment to overturn this odious ruling! Thanks for doing your part!