What happened?

Starting in 1978, the Supreme Court began to allow corporate money to influence politics. Since then, average Americans have seen their wages stagnate and their share of taxes rise significantly, while corporations have seen their tax burden shrink and the top 1% have literally tripled their income. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth in this country. And it’s going straight to the top. Yet corporate wealth and corporate power continues to grow unabated as the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations can now spend unlimited money in politics. 


Click Here to Learn About the Citizens United Court Decision

Do you like this post?

Showing 141 reactions


commented 2011-10-23 13:38:20 -0400 · Flag
It’s also worth noting that the quality of politicians has deteriorated since this time due to successful elections being more to do with fellating the biggest donors than possessing the greatest political savvy.
@markwhitt1 tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-23 02:12:19 -0400
ConstutionalAmmendmentProposing to remove corporate money from Politics. http://t.co/Z5vxOEoq Money buys our politicians.
@dawnrenatreakle tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-23 02:11:32 -0400
ConstutionalAmmendmentProposing to remove corporate money from Politics. http://t.co/Z5vxOEoq Money buys our politicians.
@VivaLaMovement tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-22 23:55:44 -0400
@Anon1550 tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-22 23:16:25 -0400
commented 2011-10-22 17:56:35 -0400 · Flag
Go Cenk! I started a blog a little over a week ago to focus on developing an agenda for the growing movement of disaffected citizens to take action to create REAL change! My latest post addresses the Constitutional Amendment and a few others for us to focus on – http://imfolks.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/focus-a-political-agenda/
commented 2011-10-22 14:54:03 -0400 · Flag
Trudy and Alan you are both spot on. I have been paying close attention to a unraveling investigation in Britian that has exposed a charity called “Altantic Bridge”, that with the American Legislative Exchange Council, CATO Institute, and an extensive web of think tanks, international corporations and have been setting legeslative agenda for the concervative Tory’s in Britian, and the in the U.S. The web of of influence is on a Global Scale and very few people in America are following this unfolding story. And if the investigation is allowed to go deeper I believe it will become the biggest story since the Watergate Scandle.
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/19/link-liam-fox-donors-tory.
2.http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/7/21/the_british_watergate_a_backgrounder_on_the_murdoch_hacking_scandal
Rupert Murdock was a borad Member of CATO Institute along with the Koch Brother’s David and Charles. and the Koch’s are founders of ALEC.and are the American side of the Atlantic Bridge.
@thompson4deals tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-22 13:51:57 -0400
@mbfl tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-22 13:14:22 -0400
commented 2011-10-22 12:16:43 -0400 · Flag
This is all absolutely true. Washington has become one big conflict of interest. The seat of our legislation has become virtually illegal. Even Ron Reagan Jr. called it “systematized bribery.” As the economy worsens from the robbery at the top, desperate politicians, lobbyists, and judges will typically become more addicted to the bribery culture and further assist the monopoly landlords.

Politics is the democratic process when we argue our ideas in the public forum. Social networking and street protest are the only forums left that aren’t purloined by private money. Washington has been stolen. The only way you stop thieves is to turn the law against them. Good work, Cenk. Take the fire of the Citizens United scam and use it to fight back.
@thymez tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-22 12:16:04 -0400
commented 2011-10-22 11:22:40 -0400 · Flag
I think THIS is the moment, THIS is the hour when we CLOSE the gap between the “conservatives” and “liberals”. In my young hippie days we called it the “generation gap”. Nevertheless, the GAP is FAKE, manufactured by the corporate media, shills for their bosses, trying to use the “divide an conquer” swindle on us all. It’s not REAL! The original tea party people wanted LESS government and were against the Bank bail-outs. Well WE want less government; wouldn’t we like to be rid of Homeland Security? Invasive pat-downs at the airport? The PATRIOT Act? Spying on citizens? Insane military size and spending? I’m for less government in THOSE departments. With the exception of the military spending, the Tea Party movement wanted less government in those areas too.

As we all know, the Tea Party movement got hi-jacked by the Koch Bros. and the Republican Party…..but those original Tea Partiers are still around. I say NOW is the time to build bridges to these people and close the ARTIFICIAL divide, put there by the Republican party. Can you imagine how strong this movement could be if we have the Tea Party people AND the OWS people together. The only difference is perhaps strategies (and the race and gay thing, but hey……even that may change with time), once they get to KNOW us and not be told ABOUT us. Right now, they’ve only been TOLD about us and what to think about us, by their media sources. Let’s do an end run around all of that heinous b.s. and MEET them, dialog, build bridges. It’s the only way. Abe Lincoln was right, “United we stand, divided, we FALL.” We’re all on the ground right now baby….time to get UP.
commented 2011-10-22 03:38:01 -0400 · Flag
http://www.facebook.com/pages/we-the-people/200818539990533 (this is what I have to offer to the whole , was once a dream now a possibility ) If yall want to contact me my e-mail address is at the bottom of the info on this page, This dream will take an army .
commented 2011-10-21 23:16:21 -0400 · Flag
@Danielle Trent

That is a difficult conclusion to swallow but I agree 100%!!!!! Take the good leave the bad! I’m sure there is a small kernel of agreement that we can grow and share with conservatives. We would be “creating a more perfect union” if we could just get those stagnate lines of communication turning, not to mention drastically increase our numbers.
Additionally, I’ve been waiting to hear something similar from the Occupy Wall Street crowd!

Great quote btw!

We Take!

Shawn
commented 2011-10-21 22:58:51 -0400 · Flag
Building concensus with unlikely allies is the fastest way to get to where we want with an amendment. Tea Party folks would be a likely start since they’ve complained about the bailouts as loudly as anyone.

“The bedfellows politics makes are never strange. It only seems that way to those who have not watched the courtship.” – Marcel Archaud
commented 2011-10-21 22:43:42 -0400 · Flag
If you haven’t seen the Huffington Post’s Lawrence Lessig’s Letter to the Occupy Movement, check it out along with his book “A Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-letter-to-the-occupiers_b_1007459.html

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil” — Thoreau, 1846, On Walden — “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root.”
commented 2011-10-21 22:31:00 -0400 · Flag
The issue with waging a battle against corporations in the courts themselves is the courts have in a very real way been, and are being, captured as well. Justices are not being called out for not recusing themselves in circumstances in which a conflict of interest is present: when Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself in Citizens United despite his wife being a lobbyist and having a vested personal economic interest in the outcome of the case, there was neither call for him to nor any popular outrage that he did not. If anything, the American right defended him for not recusing himself in the case (in fact, TYT themselves spoke about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbgN69TAsmk). To wit, the very point in that discussion between Kelly and Weiner was whether Thomas had a responsibility to recuse himself in an hypothetical case regarding PPACA due to his wife’s position lobbying in part on behalf of insurance companies.

By comparison, as I mentioned Chevron — itself another landmark in the erosion of democracy and accountability in government — Marshall, Rehnquist, and O’Connor all recused themselves from that case due to a vested economic interest in its outcome, and had there not a true political hellstorm would have ensued. Simply put, without a transparent, accountable court system — not something we necessarily have today — court challenges alone would be simply a waste of time. What I’m getting at is this is a battle that must be waged on all fronts simultaneously: challenges in the courts, calling upon Obama to end cabinet and administrative patronage, and pressuring Congress to not only clean up and regulate corporations but executive administrations as well. So long as corporations have but one untouched venue by which to influence government, the corrupting influence can spread again.
@WolfPAC28 tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-21 21:19:02 -0400
commented 2011-10-21 20:18:46 -0400 · Flag
This started in 1886 with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Citizens United was the final nail in the coffin. I think we should also fight in the courts, with a different tactic. If Corporations can be a citizen of every country all at the same time, then I should be able to do the same thing. I should be equal under the law. I think people should start using the equal protection to fight criminal charges. If Corps. can’t go to be put in jail, or put to death to pay for their crimes, then punishing natural persons in criminal courts also violates the equal protection law.
Don’t get me wrong we would never win any of those fights, but it would point out the absurdity of their position.
commented 2011-10-21 17:25:18 -0400 · Flag
There’s just one problem with a constitutional convention: The entire constitution will be re-written. That means that the entire structure of our government can change. That means that the Bill of Rights could disappear. That means that the future is entirely unpredictable.

Yes, we need a change in the Constitution to strip corporations of their human rights, their political rights, and their immortality. We can do that with an amendment.

Do we really want to take the risk of a completely unpredictable future when an amendment would solve the immediate problem?
commented 2011-10-21 14:44:39 -0400 · Flag
THERE IS A SOLUTION-
AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!
commented 2011-10-21 14:09:41 -0400 · Flag
It’s insufficient to say this conflict began with Buckley v. Valeo, and that simply prohibiting corporations from engaging in political speech will end corporate influence in government. After all, before FECA came the Tillman and Taft-Hartley acts and political machines; before corporate speech came corporate substantive due process, the Slaughterhouse cases and Lochner era. This is just the latest chapter in a century-and-a-half-long conflict between corporations and the people.

Likewise, corporations have more than just campaign contribution and lobbying as a means to garner influence. Congressional deferment of authority to executive administration and the resulting regulatory capture (see, the EPA and Chevron v. NRDC), patronage among all levels of government and between government and corporations (Bernanke, Holder, Geithner, Meredith Atwell Baker, Michael Powell, the list goes on), and media control (Comcast, TW, GE, NewsCorp among others) are all gears of a much larger machine by which corporations have infiltrated and taken over our government.

As stated by Justice O’Connor and Stevens in their opinion for McConnell v. FEC, money like water will always find an outlet. Plugging one hole in a dam that is full of holes and cracked down to its foundation will do nothing. Corporations and those who control them must be strictly regulated, and those who violate those regulations investigated and punished as the villains and criminals they are.
@I_amTheBint tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-21 13:12:54 -0400
@Fight4WutsRight tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-21 11:35:32 -0400
@CrissyAmazing tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-21 08:05:06 -0400
How the corporations took over politics. http://t.co/vGKLfyRX
commented 2011-10-21 04:45:22 -0400 · Flag
“artificial” sounds like ROBOTs to me… let us get these robots OUT of Democracy.
commented 2011-10-21 03:04:29 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher Jannette

The @ sign wasn’t followed by the user name highlighted in gray… Idk anything about posting or blogging. I’m sure to learn the etiquette and know how eventually. 28th amendment section? There are sections? I’ve never heard of those bands…
commented 2011-10-21 02:47:41 -0400 · Flag
Hey Shawn!

The @thingy just makes it easy to address who you’re speaking to in here, it’s simply a formality.

You are right, but since Cenk specifically stated that we wish to strip them of corporate personhood, it is prudent that we can redefine them as entities and also ensure that legally many of the rights of said entities remain. Check out the draft we have working in the 28th amendment section.

I am a huge fan of Cynic, The Algorhythm, Gordian Knot and other jazzy, proggy, shreddy metal bands.
commented 2011-10-21 02:45:58 -0400 · Flag
@ Christopher Jannette

Am I doing this correctly? The @ thingy…!

Hello Christopher

I’m sure the issue of “Artificial” and “Natural” person was discussed in the original 28th Amendment draft. Not to be a drag but corporations are fast jumpers, you know, and can’t be trusted. Corporations have been considering themselves “Artificial” persons before the American Revolution. I think its origin is in British Common Law. Anyway, it would be prudent to clarify this point and strip corporations of their gateway into person hood.

Who’s your favorite band these days?
commented 2011-10-21 02:43:46 -0400 · Flag
Am I doing this correctly? The @ thingy…!

Hello Christopher

I’m sure the issue of “Artificial” and “Natural” person was discussed in the original 28th Amendment draft. Not to be a drag but corporations are fast jumpers, you know, and can’t be trusted. Corporations have been considering themselves “Artificial” persons before the American Revolution. I think its origin is in British Common Law. Anyway, it would be prudent to clarify this point and strip corporations of their gateway into person hood.

Who’s your favorite band these days?
← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

signed Petition
signed Petition
commented on Contact
signed Petition
signed Petition
signed Petition

View All