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

[Better Believe It]

Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For All
Outrageous SCOTUS Decision Should Reignite Most Necessary of Debates
by Ralph Nader
January 21, 2010

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

Now let's be civil. Be nice and stick to the issue and Nader's statement. This is not a rerun of the debate on the 2000 election. Everyones position on that stolen election has been heard many times on DU.

It seems to me that a Constitutional amendment is the only way this decision can be overturned in the near future. The other is a new Supreme Court with an anti-corporate majority and that's not likely in the next 20 years or so.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. A-fucking-men!

[WeDidIt]

2. Too late

Any congresscritter daring to try will be pummeled with attack ads.

[jgraz]

3. SHUT UP YOU OLD FOOL YOU COST AL GORE THE ELECTION!!!111!!11oneone!

I just thought we'd get that out of the way early... :evilgrin:

[Electric Monk]

7. Lieberman would've made such an awesome veep, too

:/

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Less harmful than he has been as a Senator.

[frylock]

9. are you kidding?!!

nader is now responsible for ALL scotus decisions. he also killed a man just for snoring too loud.

[inna]

25. He was joking, let me assure you.

:hi:

[frylock]

30. i know..

i was too!

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. FUCK NADER !!!11!! OASIS RULEZ!!!11!!111!

Get that one out of the way too.


I never was crazy about Ralph's presidential campaigns, because they DO end up distracting from the truth he speaks on issues like this, and all the good he has done in the past.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

37. GOLDSTIEN!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

[dbonds]

4. And the corporatist will be in here to bash Ralph in just a few seconds.

They rarely miss a chance.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Are you kidding. the corporatists and corporations LOVE Nader!!!!

He helped get them into power, and to keep the power.

[dbonds]

18. Wrong, that is the spin though

The election was stolen and would have been by any means. To focus on Nadar is to take blame away from the thieves.

[Echo In Light]

20. Bullshit. Gore himself disavows Ralph being the 'cause' of the installation of Bush

[RetroLounge]

26. Psst. See post 12 above

:hi:

RL

[pleah]

5. K&R

[mzmolly]

6. Nader needs to admit he was wrong

regarding the SCOTUS nominations not being important before I give him any cred. on this issue.

[Better Believe It]

10. The Democrats gave away the right to filibuster Bush's extreme right-wing Supreme Court nominations

That hurt a lot. Remember the "gang of 14" deal in 2005?

[mzmolly]

14. We shouldn't have been placed in a situation of endless filibusters.

Did the R's filibuster Sotomayor?

[Better Believe It]

15. I haven't seen any Republican filibusters on C-Span. Have you?

If any occur I'm sure DU'ers will be alerted to watch them.

[mzmolly]

17. No I haven't. That's my point.

I would rather Gore had the ability than Bush to nominate Supreme Court justices. I'm sure you feel the same.

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Have you seen any Democrats stand up for anything that the repukes needed to filibuster about?

[mzmolly]

32. Huh?

:shrug: We were just about to pass HC reform for starters.

[G_j]

29. who cares

what the Republicans did with Sotomayor? Screw them.
That's the type of thinking that got us where we are.

[mzmolly]

31. I don't. I care about the recent

supreme court ruling. My point was in regard to the suggestion that endless filibusters are the answer vs. voting for the right friggen people in the first place.

[G_j]

34. I have a feeling we may not agree,

a maybe never will but, from my view, it is horribly ironic in this context, that it was also the Supreme Court that gave us Bush.

[mzmolly]

35. Too bad they were placed

in that position. But, yes it's also ironic.

[Book Lover]

36. Refusing to listen to and understand this message is so pigheaded

that I want to say that you personally, mzmolly, deserve whatever suffering you get.

[TexasObserver]

8. Recommend.

He's right on this issue.

[anonymous171]

21. I dunno. Maybe it just needs to be expanded.

I personally would love to see corporations thrown in artificial jail or sentenced to artificial death.

[sabrina 1]

41. That thought raises a good question.

If a member of a Corporation commits murder, does the whole Corporation go on trial?

[moondust]

22. OH, THE IRONY.

Nader is arguably responsible for corporatists Roberts and Alito being on the court to vote the wrong way on this.

That's it, cover your egotistical ass, Nader!

[omega minimo]

38. No. He's not.

It makes some crazy sense that even TODAY some Dems would keep blaming their scapegoat instead of taking responsibility.

[Better Believe It]

23. OOOPPPSSSS! Just noticed this has already been posted. Moderator help welcomed.

If a moderator could combine the two posts with all of the comments and recommendations included that would be greatly appreciated.

Here's the location of the other post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7532440&mesg_id=7532440

[inna]

28. No, no. This thread stands on its own, and many people commented in it.

The more exposure, the better.

Please leave it the way it is.

[inna]

24. KR. He said it exactly the way it is.

:kick:

I expected the 5-to-4 vote, but I'm still disappointed beyond words.

Shit, shit, shit.

Now we are even more screwed.

:(

:(

[slipslidingaway]

27. knr nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Can we ban corporate personhood AND Ralph Nader? n/t

[suzie]

39. +1,000,000

[Bonhomme Richard]

40. Question. Are Corporations considerd "persons" in other Countries? n/t

[glinda]

42. Corporate Personhood is a few people taking alot of people's money and using it for their own ends.

There is no such thing. It is made up and cannot exist unless it includes all people's votes individually.

[Better Believe It]

43. Corporations must be persons or they wouldn't be able to screw us!

[donheld]

44. This has already been posted

therefore, I get to recommend it twice. :applause::bounce: :applause:

[scheming daemons]

45. If it weren't for YOU, Ralph... Alito and Roberts wouldn't be on the court

you dumb fuck.


You're as much to blame as anyone.