David Cobb
“I’m Ben,” began Ben & Jerry’s founder Ben Cohen. “I’m a person.”
“I’m Jerry,” continued his partner, Jerry Greenfield. “I’m a person.”
“Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, Inc…” proceeded Cohen,
“…is not a person,” finished Greenfield, to laughter and applause.
A crowd packed into Christ Episcopal Church in Montpelier Tuesday night to hear Cohen, Greenfield, and others condemn the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court decision, which gave corporations the same constitutional rights as people and allowed businesses to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising.
The panelists led a discussion about efforts to block the effects of that legal precedent on future elections, including the introduction of a proposed constitutional amendment that would deny corporations personhood and put limits on campaign advertising.
The audience responded enthusiastically to a stemwinder delivered by Move to Amend’s David Cobb, a talk he billed as a 10-minute overview of Constitutional law “and why the idea of a corporation being able to claim Constitutional rights is actually a perversion of the democratic promise of a republic in the United States of America.”
Cobb pointed out that states issue corporate charters. For the first 75 years of the nation’s history, he said, charters were used to hold corporations accountable.
“Corporate charters were only allowed for five, seven, ten years,” Cobb said. “They could only do certain things to get the privilege of limited liability.
“At the end of that time period, the corporate charter automatically dissolved. Not only that, all you could ever do was the very specific thing you had identified. You had to prove a public need that was not being met either by existing private businesses or public action… And get this–any time a corporation was ever found to act outside the public interest, do you know what happened to the corporate charter?” Here he drew his hand across the throat and concluded, “Dissolved! The corporate death penalty. It was used routinely the first 75 years of our country.”
Cobb argued that Americans don’t seem to understand that people control corporations and give them privileges — not rights. He said that a resolution introduced in the state senate could make Vermont the first state to urge Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to limit corporate campaign spending and establish that corporations are not entitled to Constitutional rights.
A number of opponents of Green Mountain Power’s wind project in Lowell used the forum to criticize GMP during the discussion period, though forum organizers repeatedly steered the conversation back to the evening’s topics of corporate personhood and campaign finance reform.
Some audience members referred to corporations as sociopathic institutions (and one ridgetop wind opponent used the term specifically towards Green Mountain Power). The mental illness metaphor was made popular by the 2003 documentary The Corporation, which promoted the idea that if a corporation actually was a person, it would be diagnosed as a sociopath because corporations are legally bound to put profits to shareholders above human values like community and compassion.
Cobb said corporations are defined by “We the People” who live under the U.S. Constitution. He acknowledged that under legal doctrine the idea that a corporation’s only role is to provide a return to shareholders has become the status quo, and then he asked, “Do you know where that came from? A court created it.”
“What to me is most exciting about this moment is that we the people are beginning to have first-principle conversations about the economic engines that are the most dominant institutions of our time, that we have been taught and trained to obey… I believe we are in a pre-revolutionary time in the United States. I believe we are engaged in a conversation about, what kind of society do we want? How can we do the things we want to do?”
Audience members stuck around for more than half an hour after the forum, energized by the discussions and attracted by the four flavors of free Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, scooped in part by Ben and Jerry, in person.
The forum was organized by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and Clean Yield Asset Management.
Permalink |
It became clear to me last night that the outrage embodied in both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party stem from the same frustration: dis-empowerment of “we the people.”
Both groups rail against sectors of our society that are too powerful.
Imagine what could get done if the growing outrage had a focus.
Permalink |
What about the ‘corporate’ media. Federal campaign laws and State campaign laws, with the exception of Kentucky, exempt the commercial press.
The hush-hush of politics is controlling a segment of people without those people recognizing they are being managed.
In 1789 The Constitution and Bill of Rights are established as the law of the land.
For 97 years it was understood that 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens. Corporations had no rights. Newspapers had the right to print because they employed people and not the other way around.
“The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” -Alex Carey, Australian social scientist who pioneered the investigation of corporate propaganda (see Taking the Risk Out Of Democracy, Univ of New South Wales, 1995)
In 1886 footnotes to the Santa Clara Railroad case, written by a Supreme Court Clerk who was previously a railroad executive, became the basis for corporations claiming the same rights as flesh and blood people.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But politicians exempted the commercial press, because the 1st Amendment prohibits abridging their freedom of speech and the press.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term “expenditure” does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
But we cannot rely on the commercial press to be unbiased and provide the information we need to remain free. Both Republicans and Democrats agree the press is biased and only differ on which networks and newspapers are the culprits:
A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper’s income… The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few…that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote…in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).
In my opinion the idea of media being objective was a marketing ploy to sell newspapers:
“It was not until the 1920s that you really get the notion of professional journalists, the way we think about them today,” says Michael Delli Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. “A lot of different schools of journalism started, codes of ethics were developed, the whole notion of the journalist as objective came into play …. of standing outside the story, telling both sides, of being factual rather than opinionated.”
If the United States Supreme Court defined freedom of religion using the same logic that campaign laws use to define a free press only the church or synagogue “as an institution” would enjoy freedom of religion, not its parishioners!
“Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a “special interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the “issue advocacy” and “independent expenditure” realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it. To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60 days before an election. This is patently absurd.” – Senator McConnell
The press exemption divides participation in America’s political process into two categories: The regulated majority, every living U.S. Citizen, candidate for office, political party and political organization and the unregulated commercial media.
To restore equal protection under law, the “press exemption”, 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), should be modified to read: “The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen, citizens group, corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”
Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctio¬ns, to grant titles, gratuities¬, and exclusive privileges¬, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society–t¬he farmers, mechanics, and laborers–¬who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves¬, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government¬. President Andrew Jackson.
The 1st Amendment does not guarantee our freedoms but it does prohibit Congress from writing laws that would abridge them. The 1st Amendment was added to the Constitution because some State representatives to the Constitutional Convention feared the power of an over reaching Central Government. State Constitutions are where protections of our freedoms of speech, press and assembly are found. The 14th Amendment attempts to extend Federal protection to the Bill of Rights and in this instance is misconstrued. Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment and the Federal Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violate the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment. Federal Campaign laws abridge freedoms of speech, press by limiting how much money individual citizens and citizens groups can donate to their candidates and issues, and they abridge freedom of assembly by declaring it a crime for candidates, political parties and grass roots organizations to coordinate their advertising campaigns.
The solution to limiting corporate influence and restoring flesh and blood citizen’s control of politics is not limiting how much individuals and grass roots organizations can spend communicating. There is no Constitutional basis for making political coordination a crime? Does a candidate for office have the responsibility or authority to tell a citizen or citizens group they cannot simultaneously put out campaign materials from the candidate and a grass roots organization that supports the candidate? Where in the Constitution does participating in politics require a candidate or citizen to give up 1st Amendment freedoms of assembly and association?
UNITED STATES v. ASSOCIATED PRESS – Decided June 18, 1945
It would be strange indeed however if the grave concern for freedom of the press which prompted adoption of the First Amendment should be read as a command that the government was without power to protect that freedom. That Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.
But corporate media can be part of the solution if they walk their talk:
The commercial press is the most well-known promoter of campaign reforms to get money out of politics. Among reasons given is the need to level the playing field for challengers.
Since the only thing campaigns produce is information for public distribution and the cost of distribution is the origin of much of the need for money in politics, why don’t the commercial media offer to publish and broadcast candidate and issue ads for free?
Not likely: there is speculation Obama may raise a billion dollars and Republicans 750 million. Campaign season is Christmas for media corporations.
Permalink |
Those who believe money should be removed from politics should consider the legal language that is used to exempt the mainstream media from election finance regulation.
If living persons distribute a political endorsement it is a “contribution” or an “expenditure” in recognition that it has a political value and a cost associated with that communication. But if a newspaper happens to print an endorsement that used the exact same wording to endordse the same candidate it is neither a “contribution” or an “expenditure” because the “press exemption” removes that newspaper from the defintions of “contribution” and “Expenditure”!
The mainstream media “legal persons” have always supported campaign finance reform as long as their editorial endorsements for candidates and news slanted to support their political agenda are “excluded” from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure”.
In 1974 a year before the Federal Election Commission was chartered Lobbyist for our nations largest newspaper and broadcast corporations met with select members of congress to work out their exemption from the post Watergate federal election finance reforms read: 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i).
These So called election finance reforms exempt Newspaper and broadcast stations from federal election laws that restrict the speech and press “Rights”of “Living Persons” their readers viewers and listeners!
My solution:
Contact your congressman and “DEMAND” they Amend 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) with the definitions inluded below if they “WANT YOUR VOTE” in their next election!
“Press” means any Citizen of the United States that engages in any form of public communication.
“Media” means any Citizen of the United States that engages in any form of public communication.
“Newspaper” means any form of printed material that includes any advertisement or other information for the purpose of public
distribution, including information printed on paper, billboards, signs, fliers, web pages, and other electronic print material.
Instructions for the federal and supreme court :
[The purpose of this legislation is to clarify that the speech and press rights of the flesh and blood Citizens of the United States are no less than the speech and press rights of legal persons taking the form of newspaper and broadcast businesses operating in the United States.]
Permalink |
Will,
You might be interested in knowing that in September a conference on amending the constitution was held at Harvard, organized by Professor Lawrence Lessig and Tea Partier, Mark Meckler from California.
It was taped and will be posted on the Harvard website, but it isn’t there yet.
Permalink |
Corporations can easily give money, for example as a bonus (PACs anyone?), to some of their key employees with the proviso they use it to make campaign contributions (bribes?) to politicians who will vote for the interests of the corporations.
As a result relatively few entities tend to call many of the shots in a state’s economy. It works on the national level as well.
Then there is the federal government with its thousands of programs. It has state delegations fighting with each other, or cooperating with each other, to get the most money for their state programs that echo the federal agenda. As a result significant parts of a state’s economy dances to the federal government’s tune.
As with our food supply, the more local the Vermont economy is, the better it is and the more democratic it is.
Permalink |
Michael Lewis has identified the greatest threat to our democratic processes in the USA; but I believe that there is a much deeper agenda going on that he suggests here.
“But we cannot rely on the commercial press to be unbiased and provide the information we need to remain free.”
“The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few…that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote…in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps)”.
First of all, we no longer have a free press at all with commercial media, known as “mainstream” media, or the “controlled media”. The press has been bought. It is now a tool, not to inform, but to direct the public. This is a strategic element in controlling a society and we are a controlled society. Without a free press, as the paragraphs above say, we cannot be free; we are not free.
If a nation is being taken over by any powerful group, the press is the first instrument they must control to control the people and their government. (they have had the financial system since 1913)
The best place to look for information that you might add to your store of knowledge is the writings of Dr. Coleman.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/johncolemangoalsofIlluminati.shtml
He argues that the press in the US is dominated by the Institute for Strategic Studies and promotes the objectives of the Council on Foreign Relations. Their agenda is to implement the plans of the Committee of 300. These are all outside of our government and are not within our control.
Whatever your opinion, his work should be studied.
There is no better illustration of how or press controls the public’s perception, how it controls what the public can know, than this as a perfect example.
From my own work with Architects and Engineers 9/11 Truth, I have experienced the press completely blocking any information regarding the facts of this incident. On Thanksgiving day the Newspapers of New England, Inc. which owns a number of papers in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, published an obituary for Lynn Margulis, a professor at the University of Ma.. Dr. Margulis was a strong advocate for a new investigation into 9/11. Yet in the obituary that was published by their paper, Valley News, there was absolutely nothing about her 9/11 work. Why not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og
I wrote a letter to the editor pointing this out and requesting that my letter be published. It has not been, to date.
The internet is a mostly free media, currently. If you look, you can research topics and get many views on any issue, and many are contrary to what the controlled media would have us believe. The interet currently has economic advantages over commercial media and may come to dominate public opinion. Many people no longer pay any attention to “lamestream” media. The “Internet Reformation” is the hope for people wanting to be free. Perhaps it will survive long enough to awaken the public so that they can revive a generally free media, one that is there as a source of information useful to the whole, and not for their control.
Can a free press be legislated? I am skeptical of this. However, a public that has access to the truth will not support a corrupted press. They will be free to make the choice and the market will decide which is successful. This is democracy, and freemarket capitalism.
Permalink |
Foreign corporations (multinational) should NOT have the rights that American (smaller corporations) have.
That said , I don’t agree that corporations are persons.