It's been nearly two years since an intensely divided Supreme Court solidified the idea of corporate personhood by ruling that political spending by corporations is protected as a form of free speech under the First Amendment. Since then, that landmark decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee has allowed for unrestricted and undisclosed campaign spending by corporations, a concept that we are just starting to see the effects of as the 2012 election draws near.
Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in September, there has been a lot of attention on the potential for political corruption by powerful corporations and the subsequent gross imbalance of wealth and power it creates. Over the past few weeks, it looks like there is finally some momentum starting to build in efforts to overturn the landmark Citizens United case, cut the ties between corporations and the government, and put an end to the idea that Corporations should enjoy the same rights as people.
Even before Occupy Wall Street, when the ruling in the Citizens United was made, it was met with a lof of opposition. The Supreme Court was split 5-4 and the ruling Justices were bitterly divided on the decision. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens, the opposing Justices argued that allowing a flood of corporate money into the political marketplace would corrupt democracy. President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." And a poll conducted by the Washington Post shortly after the ruling found that Americans from both parties overwhelmingly opposed the decision.
Although Occupy Wall Street has been widely criticized for not having concrete demands, this issue is so clearly tied to the movement's frustrations and objectives that it seems like an appropriate battle for the movement to take up and fight. Although the major protest camps in cities across the country have been shut down, the group's home base has been moved inside to a small donated office space in Manhattan. Several Occupy groups staged protests at major ports in Los Angeles, Oakland and Portland on Monday which were successful in disrupting operations. The movement is at a turning point, and it seems obvious that the fight to overturn Citizens United would make a perfect strategic objective.
In Los Angeles two weeks ago, just days before being evicted by police, the General Assembly of Occupy LA passed a unanimous resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood. A few days later, the Los Angeles City Council became the first major US city to unanimously endorse another resolution asking the United States Congress to amend the Constitution and establish that only living persons have constitutional rights. Lawmakers in Albany, NY voted unanimously on a similar resolution, and in November, voters in Missoula, Montana supported a referendum declaring that "corporations are not human beings."
Then on December 8th, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the Saving American Democracy Amendment, which would overturn the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as citizens. The amendment would also incorporate a ban on corporate campaign donations and establish the authority for Congress and the states to regulate election spending. The Sanders proposal is a companion measure to the OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment that was introduced by Representative Ted Deutch of Florida in November. On Tuesday, Sanders announced on MSNBC that his online petition to get support for the amendment had reached 140,000 signatures in just five days.
In the video below, Chris Jansing gives a remarkable number that proves the importance of this action. The top four ad spenders in the Republican primary have already shelled out $12.5 million on ads, a figure she calls "staggering." Two of the groups are Super PAC's or Political Action Committees that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and do not have to disclose their donors. These groups would not exist had the Citizens United ruling gone the other way.
Kara Scharwath is a corporate social responsibility professional, marketing consultant and Sustainable Management MBA Candidate. She is currently working as a Graduate Associate in Corporate Citizenship at the Walt Disney Company while pursuing her degree at Presidio Graduate School.
Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in September, there has been a lot of attention on the potential for political corruption by powerful corporations and the subsequent gross imbalance of wealth and power it creates. Over the past few weeks, it looks like there is finally some momentum starting to build in efforts to overturn the landmark Citizens United case, cut the ties between corporations and the government, and put an end to the idea that Corporations should enjoy the same rights as people.
Even before Occupy Wall Street, when the ruling in the Citizens United was made, it was met with a lof of opposition. The Supreme Court was split 5-4 and the ruling Justices were bitterly divided on the decision. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens, the opposing Justices argued that allowing a flood of corporate money into the political marketplace would corrupt democracy. President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." And a poll conducted by the Washington Post shortly after the ruling found that Americans from both parties overwhelmingly opposed the decision.
Although Occupy Wall Street has been widely criticized for not having concrete demands, this issue is so clearly tied to the movement's frustrations and objectives that it seems like an appropriate battle for the movement to take up and fight. Although the major protest camps in cities across the country have been shut down, the group's home base has been moved inside to a small donated office space in Manhattan. Several Occupy groups staged protests at major ports in Los Angeles, Oakland and Portland on Monday which were successful in disrupting operations. The movement is at a turning point, and it seems obvious that the fight to overturn Citizens United would make a perfect strategic objective.
In Los Angeles two weeks ago, just days before being evicted by police, the General Assembly of Occupy LA passed a unanimous resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood. A few days later, the Los Angeles City Council became the first major US city to unanimously endorse another resolution asking the United States Congress to amend the Constitution and establish that only living persons have constitutional rights. Lawmakers in Albany, NY voted unanimously on a similar resolution, and in November, voters in Missoula, Montana supported a referendum declaring that "corporations are not human beings."
Then on December 8th, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the Saving American Democracy Amendment, which would overturn the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as citizens. The amendment would also incorporate a ban on corporate campaign donations and establish the authority for Congress and the states to regulate election spending. The Sanders proposal is a companion measure to the OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment that was introduced by Representative Ted Deutch of Florida in November. On Tuesday, Sanders announced on MSNBC that his online petition to get support for the amendment had reached 140,000 signatures in just five days.
In the video below, Chris Jansing gives a remarkable number that proves the importance of this action. The top four ad spenders in the Republican primary have already shelled out $12.5 million on ads, a figure she calls "staggering." Two of the groups are Super PAC's or Political Action Committees that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and do not have to disclose their donors. These groups would not exist had the Citizens United ruling gone the other way.
Kara Scharwath is a corporate social responsibility professional, marketing consultant and Sustainable Management MBA Candidate. She is currently working as a Graduate Associate in Corporate Citizenship at the Walt Disney Company while pursuing her degree at Presidio Graduate School.

Personhood is a struggle that the corporate machines have used to gain control over humanity. The dystopic allegory of the movie, MATRIX,can be seen in real life as corporations suck the energy of humans in exchange for an illusory world. When we can see through the illusions and strive for a world that is true, we will have finally engage the runaway MACHINES.
ReplyDeleteI wish we could boycott all things made or produced by corporations... we might starve.. but maybe not.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is boycotting all incorporated business's is the answer to our current problems.
The corporate structure must be abandoned, and the share holders held responsible for their crimes against humanity, and the environment.
this means that the share holders of killer drone corporations are responsible for the war crimes created.
ReplyDeleteOne of several serious problems that must be overcome. And it is a vicious Rothschild bank based attack.
ReplyDeleteHAARP info is being censored, so hit dutchsinse.com and Angels Don't Play These Harps and Weather Wars, That's Impossible before they are gone. Certain UFOs are HAARP's first achievements back 50 years ago. Other UFOs are not HAARP applications.
First of all, if you really want corporate personhood to end, you all need to drop all the "punish the shareholders" polemics. A vast supermajority of U.S. citizens hold stock in companies that do things that the shareholders would not approve of if they really knew. Do you think that supermajority is going to support an end to corporate personhood if they think they'll be held liable for those corporate action? Besides, that would be enforcing a law ex post facto, which is unConstitutional. Corportations perhaps should be ablolished, but you don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. What about cooperatives? What about unions and other trade organizations? What about charitable corporations? Simply having an inc. after the name doesn't make it intrinsically evil. The legal rights and privileges of corporations need to be strictly curtailed and defined. That is the most necessary first step. Get the corporate money out of politics.
ReplyDeleteSo on the one hand, Corporations have all the benefits of a person, even though they are not human, and then ANY and all complaints, CRIMES, alleged against them are hedged by "Officers and Directors" liability insurance.
ReplyDeleteHaven't you heard rulings by the SEC in which they say "XYZ Corporation, neither admits nor denies any wrongdoing" what a f**king farce?
Then the Corporation (not the officers who committed the crime) pays XXX Million $$$ without admitting ANY WRONGDOING???
So the "key people" that engineered the crime, get any profits the crime generates, and if caught, the company pays for their attorneys.
And if it goes further, the company, NOT THEM is held responsible.
Any if its a BIG Corporation, the Government does not want to bankrupt, they allow them to plead No-Lo and escape by paying a fine. And this is where you hear "They (the Company) neither admits or denies any wrongdoing and pays a Big fine. Meanwhile the Top Executives walk away multimillionaires. GET IT ???
Who the F**k Did It ?,...Non-Humans Corporations??
They have the best of both worlds, unlimited leverage for their own wealth, and they get protected by the Corporation Lawyers (the best, paid for by the Corporation).
It is designed to "f^^k the shareholders and public, enriching themselves" and is a LICENSE to STEAL. It is a gold mine for the "Key" Corporate insiders and is now further entrenched by the same Supreme Court that put Bush ll in office after stopping an ELECTION Count,
Any repercussions are minimal, because they are protected by Corporate Person-hood and immunity from prosecution.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, if you really want corporate personhood to end, you all need to drop all the "punish the shareholders" polemics. A vast supermajority of U.S. citizens hold stock in companies that do things that the shareholders would not approve of if they really knew."
Nonsense. A "vast supermajority of U.S. citizens" hold no such thing. 90% of all stocks are owned by the top 10% income earners. 48.5% of Americans are living at or below the official poverty level: you're alleging they play the market while going hungry?
Your propaganda efforts to not punish the guilty corporate scumbags did not go unnoticed: farang was here.