Ralph Nader: Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For All

[Raster]

Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For All
Outrageous SCOTUS Decision Should Reignite Most Necessary of Debates
by Ralph Nader

Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.

This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow “King Corporation” and restore the sovereignty of “We the People”!

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-10

[onehandle]

1. 90,000+ Florida voters can't be wrong. nt

[defendandprotect]

50. 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voted for W Bush --- !!!!

Wake up!!

[Zoeisright]

2. Fuck you, Ralph.

You've done enough damage. Now STFU.

[ima_sinnic]

5. oh, you don't think he's right? figures!

[tonysam]

32. A broken clock is right twice a day

Nader is right here although he is despicable for what he did in 2000.

[BlueDemKev]

36. Thank you.

Glad to see there are some people here who understand that Nader directly caused the Bush/Cheney era to happen.

[Raineyb]

63. That bastard! How dare he run like any natural born citizen over 35 is

entitled to.

:sarcasm:

[mac56]

75. Okay. So then, why doesn't he run for Congress?

A state Legislature?! Dog catcher, for chrissake?!

Answer: He doesn't actually want to work in government, or affect constructive change. He just wants to lob grenades and fuck things up.

[Donnachaidh]

10. unbelievable -- the guy is RIGHT and you post this?

Lemmings.... :shrug:

[mzmolly]

14. Was he right when he said that Bush and Gore would have the same impact

on the SCOTUS?

The irony of his outage is maddening to say the least.

[Donnachaidh]

28. that's not the point --

he is dead on correct about this. And complaining about other things he's said that were wrong just seems childish and petty.

[mzmolly]

29. It's very much the point.

My comment is not about "other things he said" it's about what he said as it relates to this particular issue.

[suzie]

44. He created this--he was responsible for Bush appointing enough justices to be a 5-4 decision.

He should take responsibility for that and simply apologize and then shut his mouth in public permanently.

[Raineyb]

64. No he wasn't. When are you going to wake up and stop blaming

Nader for doing what he was entitled to do? If the Democrats lose votes it's not the responsibility of people of the other party to make it easier for Democrats to win. And if they don't earn votes it's not the fault of the guy who got them.

Wake up already!

[suzie]

77. When it was Nader's fault, I see no reason to give up laying the responsibility

for all the garbage that emerged from the Bush administration on his head.

Nader specifically targeted Florida to run in. He was simply a paid off shill for Bush-Cheney.

Anything good that the man did in his earlier life is overshadowed by the tragedy that he inflicted on the nation.

[SeekerBlue]

81. Ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner.

Wake up America indeed.

[Orsino]

72. No, he wasn't.

But his old assertion about the dime's worth of difference has proven to be mistaken. Tragically so.

[suzie]

78. I'm sorry but I live in Florida.

I know Nader voters. If Ralph hadn't been a paid off Republican shill, he'd have encouraged his people to vote for Gore, after seeing how close it would be.

But Nader loved the publicity, being on TV, and needed Republican money to keep up the facade of running some kind of third party initiative.

He's responsible.

[Orsino]

88. You don't have to apologize for living in Florida.

But Nader is only a tiny part of the story. Had the media not anointed Bush, or had Gore dared to assert himself (as we now know he can), and had the election not come down to Florida, we wouldn't even remember that Nader ran.

There are millions of voters I'll blame sooner than Nader--and most of 'em don't even live in Florida.

[suzie]

90. To ignore that Nader helped throw the election in Florida is simply to

ignore the realities of 2000 and the handing over of the nation to Bush-Cheney by the Benedict Arnold of the 20th Century, Ralph Nader.

And don't blame Gore, blame Bill Clinton if you want to blame someone. Gore had to run with the largest amount of baggage since Hubert Humphrey.

Or blame the rest of the Democratic Party, which didn't have the nerve to tell Bill Clinton to step down and let Al Gore become President in his place.

[Orsino]

92. As you imply...

...there's tons of blame to go all around.

Nader's share is very small.

[frylock]

35. the dems prove every fucking day that the difference between them and republicans..

is marginal.

[Flaneur]

22. Brilliant analysis. Thanks so much.

Got anything to say about what he actually said?

[Tailormyst]

33. Holy shit, really? Not fuck the Supreme court? Not fuck the corporations?

:wow:

[laughingliberal]

40. Course not! We believe in killing messengers even when they're on our side

Could explain a few things-this juvenile attitude that keeps us divided into factions and fighting amongst ourselves. Absolutely, let's keep focus on which individuals we hate and not on the principles. That'll work out very well. Well, for our ruling class, anyway.

[Lorien]

76. OK, can we just stop with the childish "shoot the messenger AND the message" bullshit?

I expect this type of behavior from small children and Freepers, but it's just downright pathetic to see it coming from those who claim to be on our side. Embarrassing. Illogical. Reactionary. Sad. The adult response would be to address the concepts and ideas in the MESSAGE, not wallow in your misplaced anger. Nader has always fought for the people and sided with the Left. He's entitled to run for any office, just as each of us are. You don't like him, then don't vote for him, but don't attempt to distract from a very important issue with petty poutage. Try objectivity for a change, and focus on the ISSUES.

[bobbolink]

91. Now THERE"S an original post.

Geee, that is soooo different from what we've heard about tentteen billion times.

[ima_sinnic]

3. Ralph Nader once again speaks the truth

and the fucking anti-Nader assholes can go fuck themselves

[ShortnFiery]

8. I know, they blame Nader and some elderly Jewish folks with confusing ballots INSTEAD of

Al Gore and Joe Lieberman for running a lack-luster campaign.

Talk about "projection."

I've come back home to Nader albeit I always folded and voted for "the democrat" in all previous Presidential elections.

I only wish Ralph was younger ... and hope that he has, taken time, to groom a younger person to succeed him in our struggle. :shrug:

[ima_sinnic]

27. maybe I'll write him in

in 2012 just to piss people off, since I probably won't want to vote for the corpo candidates (depending on whether or not Obama continues down the same path).

[struggle4progress]

23. And Nader has been saying this for decades

[laughingliberal]

42. Yes, he has. It's a shame he intervened in the way he did in 2000

Whereas, I understood his intent, I did think there was a lot at stake and even if there was only a dime's worth of difference between Gore and Bush (which I, personally, don't believe) it would still have been better for us if Gore had become president.

That said, Nader was, until then, always on the right (correct) side of the issues and has fought for the people against the corporate powers his entire career. Guess I'm old enough to remember when he was a force for the good, here.

[GreenArrow]

48. you know, that whole Nader issue in 2000

could have been easily avoided if Gore and the Democrats had simply adopted one or two of Nader's planks. The left is great when its out organizing, and giving the party its essential ideology; it's just that any fidelity to the left seems to end beyond that. Wham bam, thank you ma'am!

[frylock]

39. word up

[Book Lover]

43. +1

I wonder if those who are paid to troll DU get more or less money when it comes to anti-Ralph posts....

[Kahuna]

4. Up yerz, ralphie boy. You called bush a, "corporation in a suit." Surely

you're not surprised that he would appoint justices that would favor corporations over people.

[Political Heretic]

6. Ralph Nader isn't wrong, but he is a putz and an asshole.

Sometimes you need more than just people who are "right" on some of the issues.

You need people who are self-serving, narcissistic jackasses, with more political skill than a fruit fly.

[Robb]

17. +1. nt

[joeybee12]

7. We don't need a constitutional amendment because there's nothing int he Constitution

that bestows personhood on a coproration...we need an amendment to toss these 5 fucking assholes off the Supreme Court!

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. +1

:thumbsup: :applause:

[JDPriestly]

16. joeybee12, unfortunately, we now need an amendment.

[Spazito]

20. Yep, now that Scotus has ruled, only an amendment can fix this now....

because Scotus has now 'legitimized' corporate personhood as the 'law of the land'.

I hope Congress takes this up but I wouldn't hold my breath on that, sadly.

[JDPriestly]

45. We have to act.

Dealing this will unify the disparate interest groups in the grass-roots movement of the Democratic Party.

[struggle4progress]

21. "Corporation = person" has been SCOTUS stance since the nineteenth century

[StarfarerBill]

9. K&R

[mzmolly]

11. Nader, the guy who said that Bush and Gore would appoint the same

SCOTUS nominees and it wouldn't make a diddly difference who sat on the bench? That Nader.

[Raster]

18. Well you know, looking at the Democratic Party today, maybe it isn't such a leap.

Don't blame Nader for Bush*. And don't look now, there may be two political parties, but they feed from the same hand and out of the same trough.

[mzmolly]

24. It was a leap then and it's a leap now.

Also, I "blame" Nader for his words, not for Bush. He said to his voters that the SCOTUS was not an issue. He was wrong. Today's ruling should bring an apology from Mr. Nader for his false assertions.

[Fading Captain]

57. LOL. You're being fooled. Look around.

The Dems had 60 votes.
And they couldn't do health care.
Why is that?
BECAUSE NADER WAS RIGHT.

[SeekerBlue]

82. Bingo.

THEY HAD A SUPERMAJORITY AND DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

NADA.

[Raineyb]

66. Absolutely not. And Nader wasn't wrong in his assertions.

That travesty of a so called Health care reform bill is evidence of that. Both parties are sucking from the same corporatist teat. And Bush did NOT get his POS nominees onto the Supreme court without help. What happened to the filibuster? Oh that's right, there wasn't one. THey voted for cloture knowing they couldn't stop the Republicans from putting the corporate lawyer and the other right wing flunky on the court.

So even in the minority they collude with the Republicans. So spare me the leap. It's not even a hop.

[LoZoccolo]

25. There we go, same cancer and fail that led to this situation to begin with.

We're fucked, so fucked fucked fucked fucked.

[Codeine]

60. +1

They doom us by not recognizing the fucking reality in front of them.

[JI7]

52. Sotomayor voted the right way on this , you think McCain's appointee

would have done the same or would they have went with the beast Scalia ?

[Codeine]

59. Obama appointed Sotomayor.

She dissented.

Your argument has already failed; no need to continue.

[JI7]

53. yup, FUCK HIM

there is nothing special about what he is saying. you think OBama doesn't know that. the Clinton appointees voted the right way on this. so even Clinton who was dlc and everything evil the idiots on ehre like to say was still a lot better than Republicans.

oh, and Nader also said Gore would have gone into Iraq when people brought up the "no difference" bs when that started.

NAder is all talk . nothing else.

[Xipe Totec]

13. I hate Nader with a passion, but he is right on this point

Congress should change the law so that only registered voters are allowed to donate to political campaigns.

Since corporations cannot register to vote, the would be unable to donate.

[mzmolly]

15. Considering he told voters that the SCOTUS didn't matter enough to vote

Gore in 2000, he's only half right.

[treestar]

38. That would make sense

Better than doing away with corporate personhood. That make start up businesses impossible except for the very rich.

[Echo In Light]

19. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. K&R

[Raster]

30. Kick!

[Blue_In_AK]

31. Nader is correct. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

34. knr n/t

[treestar]

37. Rich individuals could still combine to do the same thing

The trouble is without corporate personhood most small businesses could not get off the ground. Or it would be too risky.

Or how about LLCs?

[TheKentuckian]

83. OH NOES!!!! We gotz to trade teh future of democracy for that!

Jesus in Heaven!

Corporate personhood does not create an advantage in starting a small business. The person is the person is the person.

[krabigirl]

41. yay :) (I guess I will be banned for agreeing with Ralph.)

[Touchdown]

46. Nader is correct... and still an asshole.

See? I told you so! LA LA LA LA LA LA!

[undergroundpanther]

47. If corporate personhood is ended

Then corporations cannot pool money together to buy the state.They will be non persons like the pieces of paper they actually ARE.
When corporations begin being non persons they will not have rights to vote, for privacy,to buy away regulations,to lobby like real life people do. It will cut the greedy tyrant pigs off at the knees. Corporations will again be fictitious legal entities instead of a machine of fascism .

[blues90]

49. Nader is one of the few who makes any sense

No matter what anyone who does not like him has to say . He speaks the truth and anyone who cannot see that is a FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JI7]

51. So what is NAder going to do about it ?

[FrenchieCat]

54. Just words!

Really no positive action, ever....well not since 1966 anyways! :rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

84. To be fair, he was strong up to the early Reagan years to be sure.

He's an arrogant dolt but he did a lot, I mean a lot in his time. Unfortunately, he outlived his worth.

[Fading Captain]

56. Obama won't even say the words. So Nader is one up on him.

EOM

[JI7]

58. Obama nominated Sotomayor

[Fading Captain]

55. It is sad and amazing that there are DUers, still so petty and stupid

As to attack Nader.

Nader has been right all along.

We'll see if Obama mentions "corporate personhood" once in his life.
I bet Al Gore never has.

And that why Nader has every right to challenge Democrats.

It would be nice to force the DP to take up CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.
But we know the DP is bought and paid for, whoring on Wall Street and K Street.

[Codeine]

61. The why are you here?

If the Democratic Party is so wholly corrupt and failed why are you on DEMOCRATIC Underground?

[riverdale]

62. The hate for Nader here is what the Democratic party continues to show towards liberals

in their actions, if not always their words.

Every time Nader is in the subject, this message board goes out of its way to prove there are idiots in both parties. I don't need to read this shit... my ignore button is getting a workout. A third party is so desperately needed. Liberals are not welcome here.

[salguine]

65. Ha! You're so right. Every time there's a Nader post, I have to build a whole new

wing onto my ignore list. If Nader ran for President tomorrow, I'd volunteer to work for campaign. I'm so sick of this FUCKING SHIT.

[suzie]

86. Yeah, another 3rd Party funded by Republicans, like Nader has been?

[Raster]

67. Shameless kick!

:kick:

[Vidar]

68. Nader's dead right on this one.

[D23MIURG23]

69. K&R just to crap on the pathetic few who still feel the need to scapegoat Nader. n/t

[pberq]

70. Go Ralph! tell it like it is! nt

[Raster]

71. Kick!

:kick:

[mac56]

73. Right message, wrong messenger.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

[mac56]

74. Self edit

accidental dupe

[upi402]

79. Republican election fraud caused Bush to win, Not Nader

He went about it wrong, but he was right; Corporatists dominate both parties.

He's right here too.

[suzie]

87. Absolutely wrong.

Read all the reports about Florida voting 2000.

Nader was with the Republicans all along. He targeted Florida, he ran in Florida, he pulled enough votes to allow the election fraud to change things.


Without Nader's votes, they couldn't be sure they'd divert enough Democratic votes through all the other tactics. Nader was the Republican fail-safe in Florida.

And then he was repaid by their financing in the next election cycle.

[SeekerBlue]

80. Ralph was right and is right.

I am proud to have voted for him in 2000 (albeit in Texas, where my vote didn't count - thank you, Electoral College!).

Shame on those of you who attack him. He's one of the few sane, reasonable, Constitution-respecting voices left in this goddamned country.

He's right. He's been right all along. The more time passes, the more clear it is that he has been right.

But keep drinking the Kool-Aid and hoping for change, folks.

[TheKentuckian]

85. He's right as rain. Pooh-poo at your own risk and to display you're own ignorance

[arcadian]

89. A Nader thread with 85 recs

DU has gone all topsy-turvy