Thomas Linzey, who co-wrote this article, does some great work with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) and the Democracy Schools. I would definitely recommend anyone and everyone interested in furthering one’s understanding of how and why we have reached this current situation in our nation’s political environment, and what are some of the ways people can organize to address it.

The expansion of corporate rights and privileges under the law has been deliberate, beginning nearly two hundred years ago with the Dartmouth decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations had rights that municipal corporations—governments composed of “we the people”—did not.

For the past two centuries, new court decisions have only expanded corporate rights and privileges.  For those who think that the way to stem this tide is to find the perfect lawsuit, stop looking. It doesn’t exist, for there is no magic bullet.

———–

Today’s structure of law gives corporations a spectrum of legal and constitutional rights which they routinely wield against people, communities, and nature. Corporations have more rights, for example, than the communities in which they seek to do business. They can and do use those rights to lobby Congress, impact elections, and to decide for us what we eat, whether mountaintops are blown off or not, whether there are fish in the oceans, and on and on. Their constitutional and other legal rights, together with their wealth , guarantee that they can define the debates that lead to the adoption of new laws—and often write the laws themselves.

Thus the context for understanding today’s decision is that we have a minority set of corporate interests, empowered by government to wield their rights against a majority. It is the history of this nation. The abolitionists, the suffragists, and the civil rights movement all built movements of people in order to drive rights (for slaves, for women, for African Americans) into law—which necessarily meant eliminating rights for a minority, such as the slaveholder. In the end, it is our constitutional structure of law that purposefully places the rights of property and commerce over the rights of people, communities, and nature. History shows that strong peoples’ movements can make change by changing the legal structure itself.

Read the rest of this article from YES! Magazine, and go to www.celdf.org for more information on how to organize in your local community.

Great to see this issue get such direct reference and dissection via a national media platform. It is unfortunately becoming of even more relevance these days, what with the Supreme Court ruling giving corporations nearly unlimited carte blanche rights to purchase the American political process.

“Corporations do everything people do except breathe, die and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs in the Hudson River.”

Watch The Video on the Colbert Nation website.

Sunday talk show pundit and syndicated columnist George Will outdoes himself with this stellar performance in the service of the governing (and owning…same thing) elites of America.

“Now, some people are saying, oh, corporations, that means Microsoft will be buying ads. Microsoft’s trying to sell software. They’re not interested in getting into political fights.”

Well, in a way he’s right. Corporations have no interest in political fights, the same way mob families would prefer not to have to wage war against each other, as it is detrimental to business. And after all, as a colleague of mine pointed out, there’s no need to fight over someone you already own. And campaign donations don’t necessarily determine votes, they just determine, in the end, who gets to cast them. You don’t need to bribe ideological and economic allies. We are replete in data showing how in the near unanimous majority of time, those who spend the most within a campaign cycle attain the office. As the adage goes, we don’t have elections, we have auctions.

George Will’s assertion is not only blatantly disprovable, but is desperately at odds with basic common sense. However, he does reveal, whether inadvertently or not, one basic truth here…

“[The Supreme Court decision is a vindication of free speech rights] because the court recognized the obvious, which is that you cannot disseminate political speech without money. And, therefore, to restrict money is to restrict the dissemination of speech. To that end, they have freed up the amount of money that will be spent.”

Yes, in our society money is indeed, speech, and so we live with a political system inherently undemocratic, and one in which those with the most money get the most speech, in both quantity as well as, and possibly more importantly, volume.

Watch/Read The Full Video Transcript

Perhaps ABC and Mr. Will should consider including some more lucid and informed perspectives on the issues such as these, before they continue to blather on with their platitudes towards the “market of ideas” in our political arena.

A video on the Supreme Court ruling granting corporations unfettered access to our political system, and for organizing a movement for a Constitutional amendment to counter the egregious growth of corporate dominance over our political system.

Good, concise piece on the criminal class that rules this country.

Americans must be told the full story of how Wall Street gamed and inflated the housing bubble, made out like bandits, and then left millions of households in ruin. Without that reckoning, there will be no public clamor for serious reform of a financial system that was as cunningly breached as airline security at the Amsterdam airport. And without reform, another massive attack on our economic security is guaranteed. Now that it can count on government bailouts, Wall Street has more incentive than ever to pump up its risks — secure that it can keep the bonanzas while we get stuck with the losses.

——-

The White House’s chief economic hand, Lawrence Summers, has repeatedly announced that “everybody agrees that the recession is over” — which is technically true from an economist’s perspective and certainly true on Wall Street, where bailed-out banks are reporting record profits and bonuses. The contrary voices of Americans who have lost pay, jobs, homes and savings are either patronized or drowned out entirely by a political system where the banking lobby rules in both parties and the revolving door between finance and government never stops spinning.

And does this sound familiar?

Among other transgressions, National City [which has eventually morphed into Citi] had repackaged bad Latin American debt as new securities that it then sold to easily suckered investors during the frenzied 1920s boom. Once disaster struck, the bank’s executives helped themselves to millions of dollars in interest-free loans. Yet their own employees had to keep ponying up salary deductions for decimated National City stock purchased at a heady precrash price.

Trade bad Latin American debt for bad mortgage debt, and you have a partial portrait of Citigroup at the height of the housing bubble. The reckless Citi executives of our day may not have given themselves interest-free loans, but they often walked away with the short-term, illusionary profits while their employees were left with shredded jobs and 401(k)’s. Among those Citi executives was Robert Rubin, who, as the Clinton Treasury secretary, helped repeal the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall after years of Wall Street assault. Somewhere Pecora is turning in his grave

——-

As Paul Volcker, the regrettably powerless chairman of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board ,said recently , there is not “one shred of neutral evidence” that any financial innovation of the past 20 years has led to economic growth. Citi, that “innovative” banking supermarket, destroyed far more wealth than Weill can or will ever give away.

——-

Last week, ABC World News was also stiffed by Citi, which refused to answer questions about its latest round of outrageous credit card rate increases and instead e-mailed a statement blaming its customers for “not paying back their loans.” This from a bank that still owes taxpayers $25 billion of its $45 billion handout !

——-

If they all skate away yet again by deflecting blame or mouthing pro forma mea culpas, it will be a sign that this inquiry, like so many other promises of reform since 9/15, is likely to leave Wall Street’s status quo largely intact. That’s the ticking-bomb scenario that truly imperils us all.

This stuff should be required reading for all American civics and economics classes.

Read the complete essay Here.

Just a couple of short excerpts from a great new book by Harper’s writer Barry C. Lynn entitled “Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction,” published by Wiley Press.

Until we elected Ronald Reagan president, both Democrats and Republicans made sure that no chain store ever came to dominate more than a small fraction of sales in the United States as a whole, or even in any one region of the country. Between 1917 and 1979, for instance, administrations from both parties repeatedly charged the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, the chain store behemoth of the mid-twentieth century that is better known as A & P, with violations of antitrust law, even threatening to break the firm into pieces.

Then in 1981 we stopped enforcing that law. Thus, today Wal-Mart is at least five times bigger, relative to the overall size of the U.S. economy, than A & P was at the very height of its power. 13 Indeed, Wal- Mart exercises a de facto complete monopoly in many smaller cities, and it sells as much as half of all the groceries in many big metropolitan markets. Wal-Mart delivers at least 30 percent and sometimes more than 50 percent of the entire U.S. consumption of products ranging from soaps and detergents to compact discs and pet food.

For that matter, what can we learn about our twenty-first- century consumer arcadia by looking at how the Supercenter in which we shop was constructed? The price of the steel in the frame reflects the nearly complete roll-up of the world’s main sources of iron ore by three firms (two of which recently tried to merge). The price of the store shelves reflects the nearly complete roll-up by these same three firms of the capacity to process bauxite into aluminum. The price of the concrete in the foundation reflects the recent roll-up of the world cement industry by a few immense firms like Mexico’s Cemex. The price of the crushed rock in the parking lot reflects the roll-up of control by a few corporations over many of the biggest quarries in the United States.

—————

That’s why we have never before seen such power to govern our industries concentrated in so few hands. That’s why we have never before seen such physical concentration of production — be it of vitamin C, wheat gluten, heparin, or aspirin in China, of semiconductors in Taiwan, or of package- sorting capacity in Memphis. That’s why we have never before seen such a lack of compartmentalization of our systems and therefore such a socialization of the risk in these systems. That’s why we have never before seen such top-down competition and thus the destruction of so many of the real assets, skills, and products enclosed within the fences of these corporations. That’s why we have never before faced such a lack of real options.

I know that this last point –  that the U.S. consumer faces fewer and fewer options — is, on the face of it, hard to believe. The world we shop in every day appears to be full of choices. Yet in real life, our political economy is filled with hidden monopolies almost everywhere, and these monopolies increasingly control, restrict, and determine what we buy, with little or no regard for any real market forces.

Read More Here

This is priceless. Literally. After a community is laid prostrate before the tantalizing promise of corporate mammon, it is left high and dry by the very company that they were colonized by against their own wishes in the first place. Of course, this was made possible by the Supreme Corp ruling that gave the go ahead to private corporations to use the government as their tool to expropriate private property for their own benefit. Could this be considered somewhat akin to the “special economic zones” of spreading across the likes of China and India?

Pharmaceutical Giant Pfizer to Leave New London, Site of Major Housing Battle

Homeowners in New London, Connecticut took on the city’s leaders after they announced plans to condemn all of the homes in one neighborhood to make way for a private development project for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The city said it would bring in thousands of jobs. After a 2005 Supreme Court ruling against the homeowners, the entire neighborhood was bulldozed. This week Pfizer announced it is shutting down its research center.

Read/Watch The Original Report Here

This is a remarkable piece of journalism from Mark Ames via AlterNet and Naked Capitalism. This is today’s must read, although I take exception to the call-to-arms in the last paragraph. Before going that far, I would wait for the courts to weigh in on the illegal foreclosure story sent out earlier. But this new story does help one understand how Michael McLendon came to see things differently.

Strangely enough, there was almost no media coverage of the occupation — you had to rely on various right-wing outlets like CNSNews.com, whose article I blogged at the time , or the left-wing Democratic Underground.

But what even the right-wing anti-government people won’t report is the true reason why the Army was called out in the first place, something that goes right back to the cause of the shooting rampage: billionaire exploitation of the local Alabamans, not just by the chicken oligarch, but from higher up the predator food chain — Wall Street banking behemoth JP Morgan Chase.

That’s because the right-wing would have to come face-to-face with the ramifications of their ideology, and how the metastasizing of private power isn’t in spite of it, its because of it. The chickens (pardon the pun in this case) coming home to roost.

That meant squeezing lower-middle-class workers for more work for less pay, or in Pilgrim’s case, more work for no pay: In August 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Pilgrim’s Pride accusing it of grossly undercompensating its employees. That same year, 10,000 Pilgrim’s Pride employees launched a class-action lawsuit demanding compensation for their work.

There’s a novel idea. Just call them “communists” in the reich-wing media and then ignore them and all will be well.

- A Post From leftofdayton.net

This is an interesting development. Though there is no chance under the current reign of Supremes now inhabiting the court to actually seriously address this, we can only hope it is the start of some actual acknowledgment of the reality of the situation to take hold within the legal establishment, Stare Decisis be damned.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong — and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons,” she said. “There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with…[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.”

Damn right it can be argued, and has been quite eloquently on countless occasions, for those who have had the opportunity to hear.

Even conservatives sometimes have been skeptical of corporate rights. Then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist dissented in 1979 from a decision voiding Massachusetts’s restriction of corporate political spending on referendums. Since corporations receive special legal and tax benefits, “it might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere,” he wrote.

On today’s court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court’s conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. “Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week.

…Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights,” Justice Ginsburg said, evoking the Declaration of Independence.

Read The Complete Article