So really there are only two choices left

[MadHound]

The Supreme Court has just opened the door for our country's political process to be fully and completely controlled by corporations. Any thinking, rational person realizes that both parties' candidates are going to be bought and sold by Corporate America to an ever greater degree.

There is talk going around about impeachment, do you honestly think that is going to happen? The same question applies to any legislative solution, be it an amendment or a law. Our politicians on the national and state level are, for the most part, bought and paid for creatures of Corporate America, and while they may be making a great show of wailing and gnashing their teeth right now, that is indeed all it is, a show. What is really going to happen is that this issue is going to be subsumed by the ongoing forces of time and gradually fade into the woodwork. And by this fall, the issue will be a dead one, at least in the minds of politicians as the corporate money floods in

So we are really and truly left with two choices. The first is to use one of our only weapons left, the vote. That is withholding our vote from each and every politician that takes corporate money. It doesn't matter if this politician is Democratic or Republican, it should become the maxim that if a politician takes a single corporate dollar, don't vote for them.

This sort of movement will take the work of lots of people, and will have to work across a lot of political boundaries. We will have to spread this message far and wide, involving friends, family and even those that we don't like. It will have to truly be a grassroots movement because corporate media will not give it any sort of publicity. It won't be easy, but frankly it is the last peaceful solution left.

Which brings me to the other option, one that will whether we like it or not if we fail to turn this ship around, and that is revolution. If we cannot take our government back from the corporations at some point in the next twenty, thirty years people will become so desperate, so beaten down, left with so little to lose that they will revolt. The advent of corporate personhood signals the blossoming of fascism in America, and while some people will welcome this development, most will be given a rude shock as the last of their wealth is sucked up by corporations and the populace is turned into debt slaves. People with nothing to their name are willing to risk it all in order to get theirs back.

Make no mistake here, this revolt will happen. If we simply pump out hot air, then subside into frustrated apathy, we play into Corporate America's hands and they will take this country over. We have one chance, one tool left to stop this madness, and that is our vote. The choice is up to us, do we simply acquiesce, or do we make our will known by only voting for candidates who don't take corporate money?

So, what are you going to do, fight the peaceful, but necessary fight now, or let this country slide into fascism and revolution later?

Those are our only two choices left, choose wisely.

[MineralMan]

1. Carefully written, but

you might want to fix the title. There are only two choices. Just in case you want to post this more widely.

[MadHound]

2. Thanks for the grammar correction,

On my first cup of coffee here.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Not voting for a pol who took corp. donations results in...not voting at all.

And where does that leave ya?

[MadHound]

4. Actually you can vote for a non-corporate candidate,

But you have to be ready to gore some sacred oxes.

You can either vote for the rare Democrat, like Kucinich, who doesn't take corporate donations (at least he didn't in his last campaign). Or you can vote for third parties, like the Greens, who have made it an integral part of their platform to refuse corporate donations.

Do this long enough and perhaps the other two parties will get the message and start fielding their own slates of non-corporate candidates.

[rhett o rick]

12. While I strongly approve of this action, it will not work.

Most if not statistically all incumbent candidates take corporate money and will not have anyone running against them in primaries. Even in the general, there will be very few non-corporate candidates.

In my state, Washington the State, Sen Patti Murray will be running in November. While Sen Murray makes many if not most of her votes to favor the middle class, she does accept corporate money. I dont believe there will be any Democrat running against her and the republicans are looking very hard to a candidate to challenge her shoo in election.

I agree with your idea but the general public is influenced by CorpMedia a branch of CorpAmerica.

A citizens revolution is playing into the tyrants hands. If we had tried that under bush* we'd still be under bush*.

forgive me for being the devil advocate here. I dont have a better answer and we have to do something.

[Raster]

19. The two-party, money-tainted system is rotten at the core.

I live in Washington State, and Murray is one of my Senators. And I believe she is basically a good woman with the overall concerns of Joe and Jane American at heart. However, she is firmly entrenched in the DC system, and has to play by certain rules to play. Before this latest TITANIC miscarriage of justice by the SCOTUS, standing members of Congress spent at least half of their time on political fund raising just to try and retain their seat. And now the Judicial Branch of the US Government has just put up a gigantic "FOR LEASE" sign on top of The Capitol. It will be impossible for grassroots candidates and other non-corporate candidates to afford entry into the system.

[rhett o rick]

22. I agree. See message.

Did you happen to see my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7543612

[Toots]

5. Isn't this good cause for why so many Americans say they need rapid fire weapons?

Protect themselves from an overbearing government...

[MadHound]

6. Let's get this straight, I'm not advocating that we have an armed revolution

Too many people have a romanticized view of such a revolution and don't realize that it will be a tragedy that could very well destroy this country.

Furthermore automatic weapon against a tank means that the tank wins every time.

If it is to be a revolution, it won't be anything like you see in movies, it will be a desperate, bloody affair, is that what you want?

[Toots]

10. I am not one of those that advocate for every person and household to have a gun.

I was only suggesting what I hear from those that do advocate in that manner. Their reasoning always seems to be to protect them from the government..I am not that stupid....I don't believe any civilian needs a weapon that many consider assault weapons.. I call them rapid fire weapons because they always seem to protest when the term assault weapon is used for a semi-automatic weapon when in reality a semi-automatic rifle can put out almost as much fire power as a full automatic one can..I have never understood the supposed "need" for such a weapon in a civilized society..

[treestar]

7. I was trying trying to read this decision

Unions were included, too.

I am already starting to see it is not such a terrible big deal as people make it out to be.

People can vote however they want. They aren't forced to go along with ads put out by anybody at any time.

Anyone who saw Hillary the movie would have had to access it themselves. Only the already converted would have seen it. And anyone who saw it could question it. It's not as if everyone who saw it would magically vote for Obama (that was the primaries)

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Do you really believe unions can compete with corporations?

I know my union can't.

[treestar]

16. They did on the same ground

That is, they were also in the same position as the corps before this decision and are on the same ground after.

Just because they have less money doesn't mean they have to lose.

I'm just frustrated at people going overboard to insist whoever has more money must win. The voters may be dumb, but not quite so helpless. They just try to make it hopeless with the underlying theory that no one can stand up to a corporate sponsored ad.

The Rs own the M$M yet we still won.

The corporations can shoot themselves in the foot with heavy handedness. Or spend money forwarding Democrats.

They didn't get to show their Hillary movie, yet Obama still won the nomination, so in hindsight, it would not have helped them.

Obama got enough money from individuals, so much he bought that one half hour of TV time! (Though I recall DU handwringing that it might hurt him, lol).

[MadHound]

17. You're right, one side having more money doesn't automatically mean that they win,

But having more money makes it much more likely that they will win, this have been proven time and again.

But the real crux of this problem is not whether one side or the other, Democrats or Republicans will win, but rather that we the people will lose. Why should corporate America bother to only invest in one side when they can buy up both parties and insure that no matter who wins, their issues are addressed? We have already seen this happening in our electoral system for years and decades. Corporations will donate money to both candidates in a race, thus insuring that both candidates will be responsive to their needs and wants.

This is the problem, both parties being bought up in whole, and thus parties being beholden to their corporate masters. Unlike entities like the ACLU, large corporations have the bankroll to do this, and have, to a certain extent have been doing this for a long while. This decision by the Court simply opens up the gates so that the money rages like a flood through our political system rather than a modest stream.

Make no mistake, the influence that corporations have on our political candidates in either party is currently quite large. With this Supreme Court ruling, the influence that they wield on both of the major parties will be total, and no matter whether you are a Democrat or Republican, as a political candidate you will be bought and sold on the open market.

The only way to stop this is simply to refuse to vote for corporately controlled candidates. After all, logically you shouldn't since a corporately controlled candidate will not be putting the interests of their voting constituents first, second or tenth. Instead, the issues concerning their corporate masters will be the only ones addressed.

[glitch]

20. I think we should tax corporations who exercise their human right to free speech at the human rate.

At about 45% of gross profits. That'll shut'em up.

Any corporation who donates any money at all to any political candidate or cause pays the same rate on their income as any other human. That's fair, anything else would be unequal taxation.

And that goes for churches too.

[MadHound]

18. People can indeed vote however they want,

But study after study has shown the one of the most influential, if not the most influential factor that effects how an average American votes is advertising. Advertising is a strong, seductive and insidious force, ever pressing people to do what the advertiser wants you to do be it buy a certain soap, a particular brand of car, or vote for a particular candidate. After all, if this wasn't the case then why would so much money be spent on advertising? Why would advertising be a multi-billion dollar industry that employs the best and brightest in the fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology? Very few people, if any, are free from it's seductions.

[CanSocDem]

8. Can you trust the voting apparatus??(eom)

[Myrina]

9. ...especially when they're corporately owned ...

:( Methinks the answer is NO.

[salvorhardin]

11. "The advent of corporate personhood signals the blossoming of fascism in America..."

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission wasn't the advent of corporate personhood. That was the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad which recognized corporations as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment. The Citizens United ruling extended this to broad protections under the 1st Amendment.

While I think this decision was a travesty, do try to remember too that this doesn't just apply to for-profit corporations. It also applies to not-for-profit orgs too like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, as well as unions. At least now, the orgs on our side can fight back as strong and hard as the black hats on their side. Glenn Greenwald laid out this position: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html

[IDemo]

13. "take our government back from the corporations at some point in the next twenty, thirty years"?

Your timeline extends too far here. It won't take the Corporatocracy nearly that long to completely entrench themselves against any form of resistance. Many would say that is where we have been for decades already.

[shadowknows69]

15. You and I must know the same muse Madhound.

I was just thinking on this very subject. Thanks for saving me the time of writing about it ;-)

[Johnny Harpo]

21. All The SCOTUS Decison Does Is Finally Make It 'Legal' To...

do what has been being done for decades.

The ulra-big corps and the banks have the government in their pockets.