Why the principles in Citizens United should be expanded

[Quantum Windbag]

Why the principles in Citizens United should be expanded

...

because we want to see people like Newt who garner very few votes, stay in the election through the donations of a single individual who himself is against the process he is taking advantage of.

“I’m against very wealthy *people attempting to or influencing elections,” he said. “But as long as it’s doable, I’m going to do it..."

- Sheldon Adelson 'might' give $100 million to help Gingrich - latimes.com

way to fuck things up more: expand the principles in Citizens United

Works for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 Arizona’s 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 city’s 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

What does this have to do with "Citizen's United"?

Principles. look it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While I understand that the op is outlining an obviously ridiculous situation that needs addressing, Citiznes should NOT be expanded but rolled back. Citizens is the reason the GOP will have Mitt Romney as its nominee in the general, and why Obama will win in the General.

If you want to see what Citizens can do to a race, go back and look at Ohio on Super Tuesday.

And?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Absolute horseshit. The idea that you are a qualified spokesman for the Founding Fathers is too absurd for words. You oppose everything the Founding Fathers believed in, especially the concept of freedom of speech.

 

[bripat9643]

Why should anyone give a hoot about the opinion of Timothy K. Kuhner? Who the hell is he? What makes him more qualified than the Supreme Court?

Face it, all you've got against the opinion is propaganda from a bunch of leftwing legal hacks.

Furthermore, there is no 150 years of case law that says the government can regulate political speech. Case law says exactly the opposite.

Yeah, I sometimes wonder if the Citizen United decision isn't the DREAD SCOTT decision of our time.

Where this foolish policy will lead the nation I am not sure.

But I doubt its going to lead America to a happy place.

Ideological battles like what the SCOTUS did in order to justify the Citizens United ruling are terrible Judicial policy.

here is someone I agree with

"The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled; dismissed the legitimacy of laws enacted over a century by Congress and state legislatures; equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences; and provided not a shred of evidence of new conditions or harmful effects that justified imposing their own ideological preferences on a body of settled law and social tradition."
- SCOTUS drastically departs from precedent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | The Conservation Report

If you want a clear understanding of this ruling, here is an excellent analysis. The right wing robes have taken the right's 'free market' economic dogma and applied it to caselaw, and overturned 150 years of legislation, caselaw and jurisprudence.

CITIZENS UNITED AS NEOLIBERAL JURISPRUDENCE: THE RESURGENCE OF ECONOMIC THEORY

Two things stand out in the majority opinion: first, it espouses a dogmatic, free market form of economic theory; and second, it is printed on the pages of a judicial opinion that authoritatively defines the terms of the First Amendment. This combination of capitalist ideology and caselaw makes up what I call neoliberal jurisprudence, the use of neoclassical economic theory as judicial reasoning.... “the idea that much of politics could be understood as if it were a market process, and therefore amenable to formalization through neoclassical theory.” Based on the claim that voters and politicians are only out to maximize their own gains, neoliberalism sees “the state [as] merely an inferior means of
attaining outcomes that the market could provide better and more efficiently.” With regard to its instrumental purposes, neoliberalism is based on two realizations: “[t]he [m]arket would not naturally conjure the conditions for its own continued flourishing”; and, accordingly, the state must be “reengineer[ed] . . . in order to guarantee the success of the market and its most important participants, modern corporations.”

For now, it suffices to note that it is a jurisprudence that borrows openly from neoclassical economic theory and that its goals do not include efficiency, for neoliberalism relies not on evidence but on general precepts. Incorporated into caselaw, neoliberalism becomes an explicitly ideological variant of legal philosophy that seeks the creation of an unregulated market for political goods.

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.

http://www.student.virginia.edu/vjspl/18.3/_Kuhner.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Absolute horseshit. The idea that you are a qualified spokesman for the Founding Fathers is too absurd for words. You oppose everything the Founding Fathers believed in, especially the concept of freedom of speech.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why should anyone give a hoot about the opinion of Timothy K. Kuhner? Who the hell is he? What makes him more qualified than the Supreme Court?

Face it, all you've got against the opinion is propaganda from a bunch of leftwing legal hacks.

Furthermore, there is no 150 years of case law that says the government can regulate political speech. Case law says exactly the opposite.

Ideological battles like what the SCOTUS did in order to justify the Citizens United ruling are terrible Judicial policy.

here is someone I agree with

"The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled; dismissed the legitimacy of laws enacted over a century by Congress and state legislatures; equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences; and provided not a shred of evidence of new conditions or harmful effects that justified imposing their own ideological preferences on a body of settled law and social tradition."
- SCOTUS drastically departs from precedent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | The Conservation Report

If you want a clear understanding of this ruling, here is an excellent analysis. The right wing robes have taken the right's 'free market' economic dogma and applied it to caselaw, and overturned 150 years of legislation, caselaw and jurisprudence.

CITIZENS UNITED AS NEOLIBERAL JURISPRUDENCE: THE RESURGENCE OF ECONOMIC THEORY

Two things stand out in the majority opinion: first, it espouses a dogmatic, free market form of economic theory; and second, it is printed on the pages of a judicial opinion that authoritatively defines the terms of the First Amendment. This combination of capitalist ideology and caselaw makes up what I call neoliberal jurisprudence, the use of neoclassical economic theory as judicial reasoning.... “the idea that much of politics could be understood as if it were a market process, and therefore amenable to formalization through neoclassical theory.” Based on the claim that voters and politicians are only out to maximize their own gains, neoliberalism sees “the state [as] merely an inferior means of
attaining outcomes that the market could provide better and more efficiently.” With regard to its instrumental purposes, neoliberalism is based on two realizations: “[t]he [m]arket would not naturally conjure the conditions for its own continued flourishing”; and, accordingly, the state must be “reengineer[ed] . . . in order to guarantee the success of the market and its most important participants, modern corporations.”

For now, it suffices to note that it is a jurisprudence that borrows openly from neoclassical economic theory and that its goals do not include efficiency, for neoliberalism relies not on evidence but on general precepts. Incorporated into caselaw, neoliberalism becomes an explicitly ideological variant of legal philosophy that seeks the creation of an unregulated market for political goods.

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.

http://www.student.virginia.edu/vjspl/18.3/_Kuhner.pdf

You should really move on to bigger and better bripat. Why settle for being the dumbest turd on this board? You could win dumbest turd on the planet. I have yet to hear ANYTHING from you that isn't 100% right wing propaganda.

Let's start with your pièce de résistance: 'pollution never killed one person'

Timothy K. Kuhner
Associate Professor of Law
Education
LL.M., Comparative and International Law, Duke University School of Law
J.D., magna cum laude, Duke University School of Law
A.B., magna cum laude, Bowdoin College
Selected Publications
The Separation of Business and State(in progress)
The Separation of Business and State,95 Cal. L. Rev. 2353(2007)
The Foreign Source Doctrine: Explaining the Role of Foreign and International Law in Interpreting the Constitution,75 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1389(2007)

Court-Connected Mediation Compared: the Cases of Argentina and the United States, 11 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 520 (2005)
The Status of Victims in the Enforcement of International Criminal Law, 6 Or. Rev. Int’l L. 95 (2004)
International Poverty Law: A Response to Economic Globalization, 22 Buff. Pub. Int. L.J. 75 (2003)
Human Rights Treaties in U.S. Law: The Status Quo, its Underlying Bases, and Pathways for Change, 13 Duke J. Comp. & Int’L L. 419 (2003)
Prof. Timothy K. Kuhner
E-Mail: [email protected]

 

[Dot Com]

​

 

[bripat9643]

You should really move on to bigger and better bripat. Why settle for being the dumbest turd on this board? You could win dumbest turd on the planet. I have yet to hear ANYTHING from you that isn't 100% right wing propaganda.

Let's start with your pièce de résistance: 'pollution never killed one person'

You may be a moron, but you compensate by being a dishonest hose bag. I never said that, asshole. I said pollution from a coal fired power plant never killed anyone. If you believe otherwise, then post of the evidence. None of your turd Komrades in here have ever produced the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary.

Timothy K. Kuhner
Associate Professor of Law
Education
LL.M., Comparative and International Law, Duke University School of Law
J.D., magna cum laude, Duke University School of Law
A.B., magna cum laude, Bowdoin College
Selected Publications
The Separation of Business and State(in progress)
The Separation of Business and State,95 Cal. L. Rev. 2353(2007)
The Foreign Source Doctrine: Explaining the Role of Foreign and International Law in Interpreting the Constitution,75 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1389(2007)

Court-Connected Mediation Compared: the Cases of Argentina and the United States, 11 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 520 (2005)
The Status of Victims in the Enforcement of International Criminal Law, 6 Or. Rev. Int’l L. 95 (2004)
International Poverty Law: A Response to Economic Globalization, 22 Buff. Pub. Int. L.J. 75 (2003)
Human Rights Treaties in U.S. Law: The Status Quo, its Underlying Bases, and Pathways for Change, 13 Duke J. Comp. & Int’L L. 419 (2003)
Prof. Timothy K. Kuhner
E-Mail: [email protected]

So he's a lawyer. So what? All the conservatives on the court have better credentials.

You're resorting to a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority" and your source isn't even that much of an authority.

Here's a clue for you: If your going to appeal to some legal hack as an authority, the Supreme Court always trumps any other legal "authority." That's a matter of law and also simple logic.

If you're going to attack a Supreme Court decision, you need some other argument than appealing to a legal authority. Any 2nd grader could figure that out.

 

[Bfgrn]

You should really move on to bigger and better bripat. Why settle for being the dumbest turd on this board? You could win dumbest turd on the planet. I have yet to hear ANYTHING from you that isn't 100% right wing propaganda.

Let's start with your pièce de résistance: 'pollution never killed one person'

You may be a moron, but you compensate by being a dishonest hose bag. I never said that, asshole. I said pollution from a coal fired power plant never killed anyone. If you believe otherwise, then post of the evidence. None of your turd Komrades in here have ever produced the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary.

Timothy K. Kuhner
Associate Professor of Law
Education
LL.M., Comparative and International Law, Duke University School of Law
J.D., magna cum laude, Duke University School of Law
A.B., magna cum laude, Bowdoin College
Selected Publications
The Separation of Business and State(in progress)
The Separation of Business and State,95 Cal. L. Rev. 2353(2007)
The Foreign Source Doctrine: Explaining the Role of Foreign and International Law in Interpreting the Constitution,75 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1389(2007)

Court-Connected Mediation Compared: the Cases of Argentina and the United States, 11 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 520 (2005)
The Status of Victims in the Enforcement of International Criminal Law, 6 Or. Rev. Int’l L. 95 (2004)
International Poverty Law: A Response to Economic Globalization, 22 Buff. Pub. Int. L.J. 75 (2003)
Human Rights Treaties in U.S. Law: The Status Quo, its Underlying Bases, and Pathways for Change, 13 Duke J. Comp. & Int’L L. 419 (2003)
Prof. Timothy K. Kuhner
E-Mail: [email protected]

So he's a lawyer. So what? All the conservatives on the court have better credentials.

You're resorting to a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority" and your source isn't even that much of an authority.

Here's a clue for you: If your going to appeal to some legal hack as an authority, the Supreme Court always trumps any other legal "authority." That's a matter of law and also simple logic.

If you're going to attack a Supreme Court decision, you need some other argument than appealing to a legal authority. Any 2nd grader could figure that out.

Of course, when it comes to 'authority' who would know better than an authoritarian follower? It's enlightening to hear how you right wing authority ass lickers reveal who and what you really are.

You are defending:
Legislating from the bench
Governing by the few
More freedom for the collective over the individual

But that is not surprising when you understand what conservatism is.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[Quantum Windbag]

​

You should pay more attention to the news. Despite all the money being spent Romney still doesn't have the nomination wrapped up. This has caused all the idiots that thought he was going to buy the nomination to wonder if he can close the deal.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, when it comes to 'authority' who would know better than an authoritarian follower? It's enlightening to hear how you right wing authority ass lickers reveal who and what you really are.

You are defending:
Legislating from the bench
Governing by the few
More freedom for the collective over the individual

But that is not surprising when you understand what conservatism is.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Translation: Your argument was shot to pieces so you're trying to change the subject.

You lose, asshole.

 

[Bfgrn]

Of course, when it comes to 'authority' who would know better than an authoritarian follower? It's enlightening to hear how you right wing authority ass lickers reveal who and what you really are.

You are defending:
Legislating from the bench
Governing by the few
More freedom for the collective over the individual

But that is not surprising when you understand what conservatism is.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Translation: Your argument was shot to pieces so you're trying to change the subject.

You lose, asshole.

Translation: Projection on your part.

Neoclassical jurisprudence is not new. The author does a great job of showing neoclassical jurisprudence is what the 5 right wing robes are practicing. Why should you object? You are a 'Marketist' who believes in the Marketism religion.

Answer one simple question: What 'individual' 1st amendment rights were being denied any owner or employee of a corporation that needed to be ruled on?


Abstract:
On January 21st of 2010, the Roberts Court freed corporations to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political advertisements, including those that mention candidates by name and those that are run in the weeks before an election. Shown by recent polls to be one of the most unpopular cases in U.S. history, Citizens United v. FEC promises to set the tone for the Roberts Court’s treatment of money-in-politics cases. This article shows that Citizens’ holding and reasoning flow directly from neoclassical economic theory, which assumes a perfect (political) market and resists government intervention aimed at correcting power imbalances and anti-competitive behavior. This laissez-faire stance is not new to the Court, but it had been in decline during Chief Justice Rehnquist’s long tenure. Citizens resuscitates a line of neoclassical jurisprudence that traces back to the mid 1970s, in particular to Buckley v. Valeo and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. After summarizing the neoclassical assumptions of Citizens, this Article provides a thorough explanation and critique of these past cases which, in essence, imported economic theory to determine the meaning of democracy. Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion in Citizens, and alternatives to neoclassical ideology more generally, are discussed in conclusion. In sum, this Article offers two basic contributions to the literature, the first descriptive and the second normative: It explains the neoclassical underpinnings of the line of cases that culminate in Citizens, thus offering a new way to understand the dominant ideology on the Roberts Court; and it provides an argument, rooted in institutional economic theory and separatist philosophy, that the market sphere should not govern the political sphere.

 

[bripat9643]

Translation: Your argument was shot to pieces so you're trying to change the subject.

You lose, asshole.

Translation: Projection on your part.

Neoclassical jurisprudence is not new. The author does a great job of showing neoclassical jurisprudence is what the 5 right wing robes are practicing. Why should you object? You are a 'Marketist' who believes in the Marketism religion.

"Marketist" and "neoclassical jurisprudence" are bullshit terms invented by Marxist legal hacks to denigrate the legal principles that have been in place for hundreds of years. They never existed in the legal literature until hosebags like Derrick Bell needed some kind of rational for rejecting every legal principle that Western Society is founded on. Your legal authority is nothing but a sleazy scumbag propagandist.

Answer one simple question: What 'individual' 1st amendment rights were being denied any owner or employee of a corporation that needed to be ruled on?

Where is it written that the First Amendment is limited to individuals?

 

[Bfgrn]

Translation: Your argument was shot to pieces so you're trying to change the subject.

You lose, asshole.

Translation: Projection on your part.

Neoclassical jurisprudence is not new. The author does a great job of showing neoclassical jurisprudence is what the 5 right wing robes are practicing. Why should you object? You are a 'Marketist' who believes in the Marketism religion.

"Marketist" and "neoclassical jurisprudence" are bullshit terms invented by Marxist legal hacks to denigrate the legal principles that have been in place for hundreds of years. They never existed in the legal literature until hosebags like Derrick Bell needed some kind of rational for rejecting every legal principle that Western Society is founded on. Your legal authority is nothing but a sleazy scumbag propagandist.

Answer one simple question: What 'individual' 1st amendment rights were being denied any owner or employee of a corporation that needed to be ruled on?

Where is it written that the First Amendment is limited to individuals?

WOW, you really are a stupid fuck aren't you? The legal principles that have been in place for 150 years are not neoclassical jurisprudence, which is another name for 'social Darwinism'. Marx, Lenin and Stalin were huge believers in social Darwinism (survival of the fittest), just like YOU and all the other dogmatic morons on the right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Translation: Projection on your part.

Neoclassical jurisprudence is not new. The author does a great job of showing neoclassical jurisprudence is what the 5 right wing robes are practicing. Why should you object? You are a 'Marketist' who believes in the Marketism religion.

"Marketist" and "neoclassical jurisprudence" are bullshit terms invented by Marxist legal hacks to denigrate the legal principles that have been in place for hundreds of years. They never existed in the legal literature until hosebags like Derrick Bell needed some kind of rational for rejecting every legal principle that Western Society is founded on. Your legal authority is nothing but a sleazy scumbag propagandist.

Answer one simple question: What 'individual' 1st amendment rights were being denied any owner or employee of a corporation that needed to be ruled on?

Where is it written that the First Amendment is limited to individuals?

WOW, you really are a stupid fuck aren't you? The legal principles that have been in place for 150 years are not neoclassical jurisprudence, which is another name for 'social Darwinism'. Marx, Lenin and Stalin were huge believers in social Darwinism (survival of the fittest), just like YOU and all the other dogmatic morons on the right.

Tell you what, why don't you provide some examples of judicial cases from years ago where political speech targeting candidates by name was limited by law. Until you do, I will simply assume you are as full of shit as everyone else who claims that Citizen's United overturned over a century of precedent.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Marketist" and "neoclassical jurisprudence" are bullshit terms invented by Marxist legal hacks to denigrate the legal principles that have been in place for hundreds of years. They never existed in the legal literature until hosebags like Derrick Bell needed some kind of rational for rejecting every legal principle that Western Society is founded on. Your legal authority is nothing but a sleazy scumbag propagandist.



Where is it written that the First Amendment is limited to individuals?

WOW, you really are a stupid fuck aren't you? The legal principles that have been in place for 150 years are not neoclassical jurisprudence, which is another name for 'social Darwinism'. Marx, Lenin and Stalin were huge believers in social Darwinism (survival of the fittest), just like YOU and all the other dogmatic morons on the right.

Tell you what, why don't you provide some examples of judicial cases from years ago where political speech targeting candidates by name was limited by law. Until you do, I will simply assume you are as full of shit as everyone else who claims that Citizen's United overturned over a century of precedent.

What is intuitive to people with adult sized brains is something you folks on the right are obtuse to. WHY is that?

The 5 right wing robes and right wingers like you somehow believe the ONLY threat we face as a nation is government...PERIOD.

 

[zeke]

Now that corporations can buy candidates and, quite possibly entire elections, I think vote buying should be brought back. And if any corporate election master is out there, my vote is for sale. Get back with me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WOW, you really are a stupid fuck aren't you? The legal principles that have been in place for 150 years are not neoclassical jurisprudence, which is another name for 'social Darwinism'. Marx, Lenin and Stalin were huge believers in social Darwinism (survival of the fittest), just like YOU and all the other dogmatic morons on the right.

Tell you what, why don't you provide some examples of judicial cases from years ago where political speech targeting candidates by name was limited by law. Until you do, I will simply assume you are as full of shit as everyone else who claims that Citizen's United overturned over a century of precedent.

What is intuitive to people with adult sized brains is something you folks on the right are obtuse to. WHY is that?

The 5 right wing robes and right wingers like you somehow believe the ONLY threat we face as a nation is government...PERIOD.

Does that mean you can't find any actual examples? Since my brain doesn't stand up in comparison to yours I need actual facts to base my opinions on, not the imagination of others.

 

[Bfgrn]

Tell you what, why don't you provide some examples of judicial cases from years ago where political speech targeting candidates by name was limited by law. Until you do, I will simply assume you are as full of shit as everyone else who claims that Citizen's United overturned over a century of precedent.

What is intuitive to people with adult sized brains is something you folks on the right are obtuse to. WHY is that?

The 5 right wing robes and right wingers like you somehow believe the ONLY threat we face as a nation is government...PERIOD.

Does that mean you can't find any actual examples? Since my brain doesn't stand up in comparison to yours I need actual facts to base my opinions on, not the imagination of others.

The 'precedent' is the understanding by rational, intelligent and diligent citizens that the power and money of special interests and corporations is dangerous to our political process.

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. 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

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.

The Bush White House did 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. 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.
2005


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