Tagged: citizens united Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • perpetuallyphil 12:41 am on January 28, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , citizens united, , ,   

    a corporation by any other name…. 

    http://murrayhillincforcongress.com

    Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it is filing to run for U.S. Congress. “Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.” Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.

    “The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. said, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” Murray Hill Inc. added: “It’s our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.” Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an “emerging new market.”

    The campaign’s “designated human,” Eric Hensal, will help the corporation conform to “antiquated, human only” procedures and sign the necessary voter registration and candidacy paperwork. Hensal is excited by this new opportunity: “We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China.” Murray Hill Inc. plans on filing to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.

    Campaign manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or “even third.” “The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and “computer-generated avatars” to get out the vote. Added Hensal: “This is the next frontier of civil rights.”

     
    • absolutelylovely 2:48 pm on January 28, 2010 Permalink

      while watching the youtube movie, at first i thought it was a satire, but then realized that murray hill made it. i want to vomit

    • deadindenver 8:49 pm on January 28, 2010 Permalink

      holy jeez

    • perpetuallyphil 8:56 pm on January 28, 2010 Permalink

      murray hill is voter advocay org and non-profit focusing on grassroots campaigning…. this is def a marketing ploy as well as satire. they are making a point. and its funny/scary

  • perpetuallyphil 1:37 am on January 21, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: citizens united, corporations, , fec   

    money = speech 

    “The Supreme Court is set to rule soon on a case that will determine whether corporate entities can donate their entire treasuries to campaigns, including elections for Congress and even the office of president itself. All indications are that the Court will rule in favor of such a plan.

    In the past, Congress has rebuked a corporation’s ability to donate to electoral campaigns, believing that it gave too much power to companies wanting to influence members of Congress or the executive branch. Teddy Roosevelt himself believed that affording such rights to private entities would be disastrous, saying, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”

    But starting at a time even before Teddy spoke on the subject, eventually evolving through the 1980s era of deregulation, several court interpretations have bestowed upon these companies the privilege of “corporate personhood.” In other words, in the eyes of the U.S. judicial system, corporations are viewed as persons, given the same rights that individuals carry, including free speech rights.

    And since the courts have traditionally ruled that money donated to campaigns constitutes a form of free speech, it may also rule in favor of corporations being allowed to donate to campaigns as well.

    The Supreme Court will pass judgment within a few days on Citizens United v. FEC, likely ruling in favor of granting corporate interests the right to donate sizable sums of money to politicians, political parties, and campaigns. Such a ruling would undoubtedly change how we see politics play out for years to come….”

    rest of article

     
  • perpetuallyphil 8:11 pm on December 8, 2009 Permalink |
    Tags: citizens united, , , ,   

    corporate personhood 

    i made this video for a class/work project that i am involved with. corporate personhood is at the root of a lot of our regulation problems and leads us to fascism. it is being debated in the Supreme Court right now and there is a movement in the works to amend the Constitution to change the policy. Corporations have been citing our ‘Bill of Rights’ for some time now which has enabled them to escape any real punishment for the atrocities that they cause to our planet.

    http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/

    http://ultimatecivics.org/

     
    • pissedandtart 8:53 pm on December 8, 2009 Permalink

      What exactly is it that corporations are doing that couldn’t be done by the executives or shareholders?

    • perpetuallyphil 1:52 am on December 10, 2009 Permalink

      @pissedandtart: i dont know if i understand your question. but here is an answer:

      corporations pool resources and money together and then act as one. thats all well and fine. but it gets dicey when they perpetrate crimes against our environment or communities. when they do that, they are not held responsible as individuals for what they have done collectively. the corporation gets punished and the members who made decisions dissolve and reassemble in another corporation, no harm done (see philip morris becomes altria). you cant send a corporation to jail, even if they commit mass murder like chevron did in the amazon killing thousands. you can only punish them financially. this punishment only works to an extent tho, because the corporation when sued, puts on its citizen hat and claims trail by jury and due process instead of simply having a fine levied. this happened with the Exxon Valdez oil spill when exxon reduced a 5 billion dollar fine to 500 million over a 20 year court trial, which by the end of and still to this day, Exxon became the largest corporation in the world. father, there is the problem of using corporate resources to donate their “free speech (read: money)” to elections to get the laws that they want. even further, they can claim the 5th amendment when labeling or not labeling products i.e. GMO foods. in a scary future the corp could claim 2nd amendment rights allowing them to bear arms… really its just the problem of a corporation being and entity when its beneficial and a person when its beneficial, with no accountability to be handed down due to the circumstances. limited liability. someone takes the fall, business continues as normal.

    • waterling 5:57 am on December 10, 2009 Permalink


      though, do you think corporations have been static the last ten years? ie do you have hope that the world can function without corporations, entirely, realistically?

    • perpetuallyphil 5:01 am on December 13, 2009 Permalink

      i dont think that we need to operate without the means to act collectively. i just think that we need to be able to control the most powerful interests that exist. there are some corps that do good things, and pooling resources happens for a reason. when corps we first enabled there were really strong regulations, because the gov new how powerful they were. the original statutes require that corps were in “the interest of the community at large.” that is not the case any longer, clearly. i just want us to at least return to a place where we can check their power and have them serve the purpose of helping our collective.
      this is more powerful than the false premise of “corporate responsibility” that is little more than a marketing ploy.
      thats all i am saying

    • pissedandtart 7:50 pm on December 16, 2009 Permalink

      Corporate officers and executives have been and can be criminally prosecuted for crimes they committed as officers of a corporation. Corporations actually cannot murder anyone, as murder requires forming a specific intent and engaging in a certain action (“pulling the trigger”). What would happen is that an agent of the corporation forms the intent and takes the action, and they can be prosecuted when they do so.

      As for when a crime has actually been committed by the corporation, of course it should get a fair trial. The money of the corporation is essentially the money of the shareholders, so why should the shareholders be fined without due process?

      By the way, if corporations didn’t contribute to campaigns, the individual board members and executives would do so themselves.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel