Saving American Democracy From Corporations

The Supreme Court’s decision to unfetter corporate money-bag-400301_640political contributions needs to be reversed by local action!

Bernie Sanders had a point  in his quest for the reversal of Citizens United in 2012 but not the method to attack it. Bernie wanted a constitutional Amendment to reverse Citizens United; however using a sledgehammer to kill ants is not logical as it consequent side effects are too widespread. Bernie’s approach was just as illogical even though his goal was good for America.

Giving corporations the rights of human beings, specifically freedom of speech but defined in cash, makes no sense to most Americans.  In fact it is odious!  The citizens of America have forever fought the battle of efforts by the corporate wealthy to establish a corporatocracy and before corporation’s existed by those who wished for a Plutocracy.

Five years of the resultant legislative action and reaction (after Citizens United) is hard to reverse, just as will be the failed attempt at national healthcare by  those who legislated for ObamaCare. ObamaCare may be changed in name and in structure but its roots like that of many invasive plants will never be fully removed.

corruptionIn the case of Citizens United, a grassroots effort to chip away at its foundations accross America may be our best bet.  There is clear precedent for this approach when you consider the results of efforts to maintain the Right To Bear Arms and those of the movement to allow for Gay Marriage. Here is a story much on this point from The Atlantic…..



One comment on “Saving American Democracy From Corporations


    I disagree with overturning Citizens United and feel we could do a better job focusing on other electioneering reform. CU has not caused an expansion of corporatocracy as all it did was add public disclosure to when corporations voice their support for or against a candidate or in public electioneering. Many corporations choose not to exercise their free speech rights in this manner in fear of alienating a large swatch of their customers. Billionaires such as Soros or Koch, for example, will always find ways to have their opinion be heard no matter the electioneering laws.

    Corporations are not inanimate objects, they are associations of people. The concept of a corporation having “personhood” is nothing new. I do not feel, for example, the Federal Elections Commission should have the right to silence a film from being shown no matter if that is a Michael Moore “documentary” or “Hillary’s America”. The CU decision has helped keep the government at bay from preventing free speech and that is always a good thing, in my opinion.

    I would prefer to see time and resources spent to on orgs such as and Free & Equal Elections Foundation which work toward more voice and more choice, rather than government restricted speech.

    Far more damage is done to the election process by gerrymandering and other protectionist schemes.

    Hope this offers you some insight as to my opinion, and I may say, most Libertarians and most conservatives. Though, ironically, most liberals were NOT for Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 “documentary” being banned by the government from being seen, but were for the government restricting “Celsius 41.11” from being seen. And this is the crux of the CU decision, overall.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s