Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Dina Galassini does not seem to pose a threat to Arizonas civic integrity. But the government of this desert community believes that you cannot be too careful. And state law empowers local governments to be vigilant against the lurking danger that political speech might occur before the speakers notify the government and comply with all the speech rules.
Last October, Galassini became annoyed like many Ron Paul supporters, she is easily annoyed by government about the citys plan to augment its spending with a $29.6 million bond issue, to be voted on by mail by Nov. 8. On Oct. 6, she sent e-mails to 23 friends and acquaintances, urging them to write letters to newspapers and join her in two demonstrations against the bond measure. On Oct. 12, before she could organize the demonstrations, she received a stern letter from the town clerk: I would strongly encourage you to cease any campaign-related activities until the requirements of the law have been met.
State law this is the state of John McCain, apostle of political purification through the regulation of political speech says that anytime two or more people work together to influence a vote on a ballot measure, they instantly become a political committee. This transformation triggers various requirements registering with the government, filing forms, establishing a bank account for the committee even if it has raised no money and does not intend to. This must be done before members of this fictitious committee may speak.
Montanas 1912 Corrupt Practices Act blocks certain political speech by corporations; plaintiffs in the case sought to have the century-old law declared unconstitutional. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who represented the state in defending the ban, said the case was the first to examine state laws and elections.
Montana has a compelling interest to uphold its campaign-finance laws that include both restrictions and disclosure requirements, the court held, according to the Great Falls Tribune. The state Supreme Court overturned a lower state court ruling, saying it couldnt find that current laws unfairly impeded corporate owners from engaging in political activity.
The court also said political corporations like American Tradition Partnership, which brought the suit challenging the 1912 law, act as conduits for anonymous spending by others and represent a threat to the political marketplace. Corporations can remain politically active by forming voluntary political action committees, which are subject to disclosure requirements, the court said.
There are idiots out there that think politicians have their best interests at heart. I cannot stress enough just how stupid that belief is.
Dina Galassini does not seem to pose a threat to Arizonas civic integrity. But the government of this desert community believes that you cannot be too careful. And state law empowers local governments to be vigilant against the lurking danger that political speech might occur before the speakers notify the government and comply with all the speech rules.
Last October, Galassini became annoyed like many Ron Paul supporters, she is easily annoyed by government about the citys plan to augment its spending with a $29.6 million bond issue, to be voted on by mail by Nov. 8. On Oct. 6, she sent e-mails to 23 friends and acquaintances, urging them to write letters to newspapers and join her in two demonstrations against the bond measure. On Oct. 12, before she could organize the demonstrations, she received a stern letter from the town clerk: I would strongly encourage you to cease any campaign-related activities until the requirements of the law have been met.
State law this is the state of John McCain, apostle of political purification through the regulation of political speech says that anytime two or more people work together to influence a vote on a ballot measure, they instantly become a political committee. This transformation triggers various requirements registering with the government, filing forms, establishing a bank account for the committee even if it has raised no money and does not intend to. This must be done before members of this fictitious committee may speak.
States are cracking down on political speech with burdensome laws - The Washington Post
There are idiots out there that think politicians have their best interests at heart. I cannot stress enough just how stupid that belief is.
States are cracking down on political speech with burdensome laws - The Washington PostDina Galassini does not seem to pose a threat to Arizonas civic integrity. But the government of this desert community believes that you cannot be too careful. And state law empowers local governments to be vigilant against the lurking danger that political speech might occur before the speakers notify the government and comply with all the speech rules.
Last October, Galassini became annoyed like many Ron Paul supporters, she is easily annoyed by government about the citys plan to augment its spending with a $29.6 million bond issue, to be voted on by mail by Nov. 8. On Oct. 6, she sent e-mails to 23 friends and acquaintances, urging them to write letters to newspapers and join her in two demonstrations against the bond measure. On Oct. 12, before she could organize the demonstrations, she received a stern letter from the town clerk: I would strongly encourage you to cease any campaign-related activities until the requirements of the law have been met.
State law this is the state of John McCain, apostle of political purification through the regulation of political speech says that anytime two or more people work together to influence a vote on a ballot measure, they instantly become a political committee. This transformation triggers various requirements registering with the government, filing forms, establishing a bank account for the committee even if it has raised no money and does not intend to. This must be done before members of this fictitious committee may speak.
There are ways to address this without expanding the most egregious Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
Montana says fuck you to your big government statism.
Montana Supreme Court Defies Citizens United Decision, Upholds State Ban - Law Blog - WSJMontanas 1912 Corrupt Practices Act blocks certain political speech by corporations; plaintiffs in the case sought to have the century-old law declared unconstitutional. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who represented the state in defending the ban, said the case was the first to examine state laws and elections.
Montana has a compelling interest to uphold its campaign-finance laws that include both restrictions and disclosure requirements, the court held, according to the Great Falls Tribune. The state Supreme Court overturned a lower state court ruling, saying it couldnt find that current laws unfairly impeded corporate owners from engaging in political activity.
The court also said political corporations like American Tradition Partnership, which brought the suit challenging the 1912 law, act as conduits for anonymous spending by others and represent a threat to the political marketplace. Corporations can remain politically active by forming voluntary political action committees, which are subject to disclosure requirements, the court said.
Montana says fuck you to your big government statism.
Montana Supreme Court Defies Citizens United Decision, Upholds State Ban - Law Blog - WSJMontana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act blocks certain political speech by corporations; plaintiffs in the case sought to have the century-old law declared unconstitutional. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who represented the state in defending the ban, said the case was the first to examine state laws and elections.
Montana has “a compelling interest” to uphold its campaign-finance laws that include both restrictions and disclosure requirements, the court held, according to the Great Falls Tribune. The state Supreme Court overturned a lower state court ruling, saying it couldn’t find that current laws unfairly impeded corporate owners from engaging in political activity.
The court also said political corporations like American Tradition Partnership, which brought the suit challenging the 1912 law, “act as conduits for anonymous spending by others and represent a threat to the ‘political marketplace.’” Corporations can remain politically active by forming voluntary political action committees, which are subject to disclosure requirements, the court said.
I would respond to you, but you just proved in another thread you do not even know what analogy means, and I am too tired to educate you.
There are idiots out there that think politicians have their best interests at heart. I cannot stress enough just how stupid that belief is.
States are cracking down on political speech with burdensome laws - The Washington Post
There are ways to address this without expanding the most egregious Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
Why is it egregious for the Supreme Court to tell the government it does not have the power to ban books?
Montana says fuck you to your big government statism.
Montana Supreme Court Defies Citizens United Decision, Upholds State Ban - Law Blog - WSJ
I would respond to you, but you just proved in another thread you do not even know what analogy means, and I am too tired to educate you.
You just proved that you don't understand hypocrisy....Oh....how, ironic. Plus, I acknowledged how silly your analogy was.
Plus, this is a state issue, not a federal issue.
I would respond to you, but you just proved in another thread you do not even know what analogy means, and I am too tired to educate you.
You just proved that you don't understand hypocrisy....Oh....how, ironic. Plus, I acknowledged how silly your analogy was.
Plus, this is a state issue, not a federal issue.
It ceases being a state issue when it is found in violation of Constitutional law.
Sadly (in this case) it is.
It appears to me that that state law violates citizens' constitutional right to freedom of assembly, and citizens constitutional right to freedom of speech, too.
I approve of the motive behind the law, but I don't think it will pass constitutional muster.
There are ways to address this without expanding the most egregious Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
Why is it egregious for the Supreme Court to tell the government it does not have the power to ban books?
You prefaced the thread by questioning people's intelligence. So it is fair to ask; are you that simple minded?
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
True.
But that wasn’t the issue reviewed in Citizens United.
At issue was the government’s effort to withhold funding in an effort to control speech and ‘protect’ citizens from political ads too close to an election. Since the government failed to demonstrate a compelling or rational justification to restrict certain speech, the policy was struck down.
In fact the policy had become an anachronism in this modern age of wireless communication and subscriber funded media.
That the government acted in good faith or nefarious partisans might abuse their First Amendment right is not justification to preempt that right.
True.The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
But that wasnt the issue reviewed in Citizens United.
At issue was the governments effort to withhold funding in an effort to control speech and protect citizens from political ads too close to an election. Since the government failed to demonstrate a compelling or rational justification to restrict certain speech, the policy was struck down.
In fact the policy had become an anachronism in this modern age of wireless communication and subscriber funded media.
That the government acted in good faith or nefarious partisans might abuse their First Amendment right is not justification to preempt that right.
The 'issue' is something Americans from both side of the aisle have been keenly aware of for over 100 years. The Roberts Court wiped out generations of prior case-law and hard-won legislation. What should have been a narrow decision quickly blossomed into a brave declaration; a manifesto, that freed corporations to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political advertisements. The corrosive effect will be devastating especially in local and state campaigns and elections.
A close reading of Citizens reveals that the five conservative Justices of the Roberts Court have redefined democracy on the basis of this free market approach to constitutional values. This much is evident in the principles affirmed by the majority: corporations have a First Amendment right to political speech; a restraint on how that speech is funded is a constraint on speech itself; political speech must occur in an unregulated market; the government is untrustworthy and corporations are trustworthy; the only acceptable role for government in regulating money in politics is to prevent quid pro quo corruption; enhancing the voice of some by restricting the voice of others is unconstitutional; undue influence and unequal access are perfectly democratic and compatible with public trust in the system; and an open market is necessarily competitive and home to diverse viewpoints that inform a vigilant and independent electorate.
The Roberts court shit on the graves of our ancestors and pissed in the face of America. They should be removed from the court.
ref
The 'issue' is something Americans from both side of the aisle have been keenly aware of for over 100 years. The Roberts Court wiped out generations of prior case-law and hard-won legislation. What should have been a narrow decision quickly blossomed into a brave declaration; a manifesto, that freed corporations to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political advertisements. The corrosive effect will be devastating especially in local and state campaigns and elections.
A close reading of Citizens reveals that the five conservative Justices of the Roberts Court have redefined democracy on the basis of this free market approach to constitutional values. This much is evident in the principles affirmed by the majority: corporations have a First Amendment right to political speech; a restraint on how that speech is funded is a constraint on speech itself; political speech must occur in an unregulated market; the government is untrustworthy and corporations are trustworthy; the only acceptable role for government in regulating money in politics is to prevent quid pro quo corruption; enhancing the voice of some by restricting the voice of others is unconstitutional; undue influence and unequal access are perfectly democratic and compatible with public trust in the system; and an open market is necessarily competitive and home to diverse viewpoints that inform a vigilant and independent electorate.
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. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. See Part II–E, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (Sept. 9, 2009); see also id. , at 26–31 (Mar. 24, 2009). If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds “that the FEC has never applied this statute to a book,” and if it did, “there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
The Roberts court shit on the graves of our ancestors and pissed in the face of America. They should be removed from the court.
The 'issue' is something Americans from both side of the aisle have been keenly aware of for over 100 years. The Roberts Court wiped out generations of prior case-law and hard-won legislation. What should have been a narrow decision quickly blossomed into a brave declaration; a manifesto, that freed corporations to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political advertisements. The corrosive effect will be devastating especially in local and state campaigns and elections.
Quite possible.
But not justification.
A close reading of Citizens reveals that the five conservative Justices of the Roberts Court have redefined democracy on the basis of this free market approach to constitutional values. This much is evident in the principles affirmed by the majority: corporations have a First Amendment right to political speech; a restraint on how that speech is funded is a constraint on speech itself; political speech must occur in an unregulated market; the government is untrustworthy and corporations are trustworthy; the only acceptable role for government in regulating money in politics is to prevent quid pro quo corruption; enhancing the voice of some by restricting the voice of others is unconstitutional; undue influence and unequal access are perfectly democratic and compatible with public trust in the system; and an open market is necessarily competitive and home to diverse viewpoints that inform a vigilant and independent electorate.
Again, at issue was the governments ability to justify the upholding of the existing laws the government clearly failed to provide such justification:
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. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. See Part IIE, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (Sept. 9, 2009); see also id. , at 2631 (Mar. 24, 2009). If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds that the FEC has never applied this statute to a book, and if it did, there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge. Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
The Roberts court shit on the graves of our ancestors and pissed in the face of America. They should be removed from the court.
The Court placed the onus on the individual voter, ultimately responsible for his vote.
Quite possible.The 'issue' is something Americans from both side of the aisle have been keenly aware of for over 100 years. The Roberts Court wiped out generations of prior case-law and hard-won legislation. What should have been a narrow decision quickly blossomed into a brave declaration; a manifesto, that freed corporations to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political advertisements. The corrosive effect will be devastating especially in local and state campaigns and elections.
But not justification.
Again, at issue was the governments ability to justify the upholding of the existing laws the government clearly failed to provide such justification:
The Court placed the onus on the individual voter, ultimately responsible for his vote.The Roberts court shit on the graves of our ancestors and pissed in the face of America. They should be removed from the court.
"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
The Roberts court ruled on questions that were not before the court. So the government was confronted with trying to argue against a manifesto. The Roberts court overreached the case before them and decided to ADD their own agenda to the case.
In terms of absolute freedom, no lawyer could make a sound case that traffic lights and stop signs don't restrict our freedoms. But the reasons for traffic law is apparent to all sane adults. The court placed the voter in an environment where the driver of a vehicle and a pedestrian are considered totally equal, where neither party has an advantage.
Let me ask you this; do any of the citizens who are part of a corporation have any less first amendment rights than you or I do as individuals? BUT, do you and I have the same collective power to get our beliefs out to the general public? The Roberts court ruled that money can buy MORE free speech, influence the outcome of elections and control government to the benefit of stockholders.
The American people are STAKEholders in our representative form of government. The interests of stockholders have often been at odds with the interests of stakeholders. And they have often been fatal to stakeholders.
This is very dangerous and toxic ground the Roberts court has opened. For over 100 years sane people from both sides of the aisle have known the dangers and prior case-law and hard-won legislation have reflected that knowledge.
The communists had their manifesto, now America has their own.
22 billionaires gave half the Super PAC money....
Stephen Colbert continued his one-man crusade against "super PACs" on Thursday night with an ironic salute to 22 of their biggest backers.
Tuesday was the deadline for presidential super PACs to disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, and the reports underscored the increasingly influential role of money in electoral politics.
"To all the worrywarts out there who said that super PACs were going to lead to a cabal of billionaires secretly buying democracy: Wrong. They are publicly buying democracy," Colbert (sort of) joked.
As he explained, approximately half of all super PAC money -- some $67 million dollars -- came from just 22 donors.
"I am sure that the good government goo-goos out there are saying this is just handing all the power to the 1% when in fact 22 people in a population of 300 million: Thats 7 one-millionths of 1 percent," Colbert said, tapping away on his trusty calculator until it spewed smoke. "So Occupy Wall Street, youre going to want to change those signs."
Colbert insisted that there was nothing alarming about this statistic: "This is what the Supreme Court intended with their Citizens United ruling: Twenty-two billionaires deciding who our next leader would be. Im sure its the way that the 22 billionaires who chose our Founding Fathers would want it."
He then cut to a patriotic montage, set to Romney's tin-eared rendition of "America the Beautiful," of the "22 people selecting our next president." (Of course, by "people," Colbert means both actual humans and corporations.)
"Join me in honoring these 22 patriots who have given so much, and expect so much in return," he said.
Late Night: Colbert says super PACs are 'publicly buying democracy' - latimes.com
Quite possible.
But not justification.
Again, at issue was the governments ability to justify the upholding of the existing laws the government clearly failed to provide such justification:
The Court placed the onus on the individual voter, ultimately responsible for his vote.
"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
The Roberts court ruled on questions that were not before the court. So the government was confronted with trying to argue against a manifesto. The Roberts court overreached the case before them and decided to ADD their own agenda to the case.
In terms of absolute freedom, no lawyer could make a sound case that traffic lights and stop signs don't restrict our freedoms. But the reasons for traffic law is apparent to all sane adults. The court placed the voter in an environment where the driver of a vehicle and a pedestrian are considered totally equal, where neither party has an advantage.
Let me ask you this; do any of the citizens who are part of a corporation have any less first amendment rights than you or I do as individuals? BUT, do you and I have the same collective power to get our beliefs out to the general public? The Roberts court ruled that money can buy MORE free speech, influence the outcome of elections and control government to the benefit of stockholders.
The American people are STAKEholders in our representative form of government. The interests of stockholders have often been at odds with the interests of stakeholders. And they have often been fatal to stakeholders.
This is very dangerous and toxic ground the Roberts court has opened. For over 100 years sane people from both sides of the aisle have known the dangers and prior case-law and hard-won legislation have reflected that knowledge.
The communists had their manifesto, now America has their own.
Tell you what, why don't you tell me what facts the court decided on that you think they got wrong. My guess is you have no idea what you are talking about, but I am willing to give you a chance to prove me wrong. Give it a shot.
"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
The Roberts court ruled on questions that were not before the court. So the government was confronted with trying to argue against a manifesto. The Roberts court overreached the case before them and decided to ADD their own agenda to the case.
In terms of absolute freedom, no lawyer could make a sound case that traffic lights and stop signs don't restrict our freedoms. But the reasons for traffic law is apparent to all sane adults. The court placed the voter in an environment where the driver of a vehicle and a pedestrian are considered totally equal, where neither party has an advantage.
Let me ask you this; do any of the citizens who are part of a corporation have any less first amendment rights than you or I do as individuals? BUT, do you and I have the same collective power to get our beliefs out to the general public? The Roberts court ruled that money can buy MORE free speech, influence the outcome of elections and control government to the benefit of stockholders.
The American people are STAKEholders in our representative form of government. The interests of stockholders have often been at odds with the interests of stakeholders. And they have often been fatal to stakeholders.
This is very dangerous and toxic ground the Roberts court has opened. For over 100 years sane people from both sides of the aisle have known the dangers and prior case-law and hard-won legislation have reflected that knowledge.
The communists had their manifesto, now America has their own.
Tell you what, why don't you tell me what facts the court decided on that you think they got wrong. My guess is you have no idea what you are talking about, but I am willing to give you a chance to prove me wrong. Give it a shot.
I just did. Maybe you need an interpreter?
Read Justice Stevens's scathing dissent.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Although this 2005 speech was before the Right wing robes manifesto, Bobby Kennedy Jr. hits the nail on the head.
There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.
And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.
This (Bush) White House has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.
Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.
Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.
