Government of, by and FOR the people, er, I mean, the corporation.
What is the place of the corporation in the new millenium? Is the unchecked power and cancerous growth of this bizarre entity a necessary force in society, or is it an outdated tool of the industrial revolution that should be abandoned and forcefully removed like asbestos or reality TV? It’s pretty apparent that the corporation and the western interpretation of capitalism have become out of control monsters with all of the pleasantries of Darth Vader’s “Empire”, but has this bear been let out of it’s cage too long? Is it in fact too late to divert the Trojan horse back out of the gates of planetary society? This story by Greg Palast may prove that to be the case.
Infowars, huh? Who’da thunk it.
Comment by The Towelizer # January 24, 2010 at 4:47 pm
New Theories site? How could it get better than THIS?!
Comment by Psyched Floridian # January 24, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I know Mr. Floridian, but dreams DO come true!
Comment by Theorizer # January 24, 2010 at 8:04 pm
That article made it sound like the Court actively tried to make it easier for foreign corporations to have a say in American politics, but my understanding is that they struck down the law because they regarded it as unconstitutional. So it might be that the ruling in question will lead to some of the bad types of outcomes that the author nuts himself* talking about, but it won’t be by design. And what would you prefer, a Court that selectively fulfills its intended institutional role and only strikes down some proportion of the laws it regards as unconstitutional, or a Court that does what it is supposed to do, as set forth in the Constitution itself, and strikes down all of the laws it regards as unconstitutional?
*: I actually just came too, alone and without the use of my hands.
Comment by Seabreeze # January 25, 2010 at 12:37 am
Haha! Doesn’t matter what nature under which the crime was committed, it’s a crime nonetheless. Plus, could you please explain to me how this court ruling could possibly be “upholding the constitution”? Seriously, I beg of you. Explain. Where in the constitution is it stated that corporations are to have the same rights as human citizens. Actually, better yet, have MORE rights and power than the human citizen. Do tell. Because you and I are only permitted to make up to $2,300 in direct campaign donations. Yet, corporations are now allowed unlimited contributions? How in god’s name could you reason this out to be “constitutional”? You have far too much faith in our institutions and in humanity. Do you really think there’s no such thing as corruption, bribery and corporate nepotism in American politics?
Goodness gracious, do you also ride a unicorn to school and slide down rainbows into pots of gold in your spare time?
Comment by Theorizer # January 25, 2010 at 9:02 am
Finally got around to watching all the youtube links and read the story. I’m a little confused.. Don’t the people with the most money already control everything anyway? They already make contributions to whoever they want, to “try and help” ensure their best interests, right? Now they can just do it publicly hiding behind corporations, and it’s legal? Is that what’s going on here?
So basically all we can hope for is that someone with a good conscience is running the world. Has anything really changed?
Comment by Psyched Floridian # January 25, 2010 at 11:42 am
What I wouldn’t give for your sophistication, your skepticism, and your overall mastery of so many different subjects (physics, the law, myths and legends, independent skateboard film making, armchair numerology, et cetera). I defer to you; it must be that the Court’s ruling violates the Constitution. It cannot be that there is a long tradition (precedent–ever heard this word in a legal context before?) of treating corporations as if they are individuals in certain situations, and it cannot be that the way the founding fathers intended corporations to be treated was left vague, so that it was left for judges to effectively decide later based on their own interpretation of what the Constitution intended. Not if you suggest otherwise. Your skepticism is certainly warranted, and it is time to fundamentally rearrange the checks and balances system that we have relied upon for well over 200 years (and that most people–we now know, thanks to you and so many other truly brave ham radio fans–foolishly believe to be broadly good and effective). Oh, and nice use of the words ‘corruption’, ‘bribery’, and ‘corporate nepotism’–you use these very important and meaningful words in a way that completely convinces me you know exactly what you’re talking about, and that you could go beyond juvenile hand-waving if necessary. (After all, these are buzz words, and it is impossible for total hacks to use them in support of an argument. In other words, it cannot be that these words actually add nothing to the discussion and that you just use them because you get excited seeing them in print. I would venture a guess that this kind of thing has actually never happened before.) God bless you Theorizer, and when is the next Three Strikes going to be posted?
Comment by Seabreeze # January 25, 2010 at 11:55 am
Seaspray, you just sarcasm’ed yourself into so many circles that you conjured up a sarcasm tornado that took your point and whisked it into the great beyond. That rant made about as much sense as a dog chasing it’s tail in circles. Or is it that all yer big city-boy skoolin’ done pushed yer big words way over my backwoods Floridian skull?
Yeehaw!
Comment by Total Hack-izer # January 26, 2010 at 7:45 am
I am the one who controls everything idiots!!!
Comment by Jesus # January 26, 2010 at 9:34 am
I guess it’s the skoolin’ and Floridian skull thing, since there were no circles and it’s pretty clear that I was being uniformly sarcastic. Did it really take you a whole day to come up with that, or did you not see my response since were you on a battleship all day filming a Red Bull contest?
Comment by Seabreeze # January 26, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that corporations are regarded a legal, or ‘juridical’ persons, but subsequent state and federal cases advanced this theory, which was then affirmed by the Supreme Court – at least regarding allowing US corporations certain rights from the 14th amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
The role of the Supreme Court is to decide whether state or federal law, or previous cases, are in violation of the Constitution, or laws under it. However, since the early part of the 20th century, they have expanded the Constitution and the rights under it (extending the right to vote, expanding freedom of speech & equal protections under the law, etc.,)
In the present case, the Court may have struck down a law on grounds that it is not in conformity with the supreme law of the land; but this does not mean that another state cannot pass a similar law which holds up under the scrutiny of the Court, if and when it is challenged.
While everything that Palast says is probably true, the Supreme Court tries hard to be as apolitical as possible, even though their decisions have political repercussions. If the people want laws relating to the rights of corporations (or lack thereof), the appropriate body is the legislature, either state or federal. The Constitution is very short and the role of the Supreme Court is easily stated in Article III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution
I suggest that all interested print the case itself, and over the course of a few boring days, and with plenty of coffee handy, see just what the court decided instead of listening to what other people tell you about it and what they think it means, and how it fits into their other, grander political theory.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/citizens-opinion.pdf
Comment by The Brandeis Brief # January 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Who’s gonna step to that challenge and actually read the thing?
Comment by Psyched Floridian # January 26, 2010 at 5:03 pm
So, you’re stepping in for The Towel again Seabiscuit?
Good one. So very creative.
Actually I was down in Miami working on the MIA video for a month and was in transit all day yesterday after my flight was delayed for 5 hours, only to return home to NY with no working internet.
But good try. You’re somewhere around the 2nd grade level of blog-attacks. Keep trying though lil’ tiger.
Comment by Theorizer # January 26, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Actually, Brandies Briefs…..(I always pegged Brandi for a boxers guy, but oh well)…..I read the New York Times front page story on the Supreme Court decision and made my own conclusions based on what I read in what most people consider an “impartial” publication.
Even though it’s owned by Rupert Murdoch.
But the Greg Palast story, although slightly sensationalist, is written from a more populist angle and provides insight into how this decision will actually effect the common man and American democracy as a whole.
I mean come the fuck on here, are you actually trying to defend this decision? Can you explain to me how granting corporations MORE power in campaign contributions than an American citizen is in keeping with the spirit and strict interpretation of the constitution? Jesus H. Christ!
But, I do agree that we should investigate such stories as deeply as we can on our own in an effort to develop our own unique opinions, free of the influence of others. I applaud your well-drafted and cited response and thank you for the comment.
But I highly disagree with the tone of your statement which not only excuses the 5 justices who tipped this decision the way it ended up, but you basically laud them for their heroism in protecting the first amendment.
The first amendment won’t really mean much when corporations own every seat in the senate, house and the white house.
Comment by Theorizer # January 26, 2010 at 10:41 pm
“I mean cum the fuck on here”
Comment by Wino # January 26, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Theorizer, you might find this hard to believe, but I actually find it hilarious that you filmed a Red Bull contest on a battleship. (Even typing it out here makes me smile.) Plus, why would I try harder than I have to?
Comment by Seabreeze # January 26, 2010 at 11:22 pm
I’m not defending the decision without having read it, merely pointing out that the SCOTUS strikes down legislation inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of it’s social impact. And America will be saddled with Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts for some time to come. Laws can be drafted which allow corporations certain rights & be consistent with the Constitution, and similar laws can be drafted which violate the Constitution. If this law gives corporations expanded rights, more than was previously given, legislators might go – or be forced to go, by popular sentiment – and draft laws which restrict the rights of corporations.
Also, the main decision, the most important part, is about 40 pages long when I skimmed through it, which would be boring, yet readable. The concurring and dissenting opinions after that can be skipped if you just want to know what the law is.
It should be unsurprising that Roberts has taken a pro-corporation stance, as his entire private career in prestigious firms in DC before the bench was in defending corporations before appellate courts.
A long article in the New Yorker last year discusses Roberts’ career and basically made this decision and decisions like this very likely.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin?printable=true
The Palast article warns of what might happen, and having read 2 of his books, I assure you that he knows what he is talking about, but this is only one possible, worst-case scenario which, with enough popular backlash, might not come to pass. Anyway, I recommend that New Yorker article.
Comment by The Brandeis Brief # January 27, 2010 at 6:41 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_leonardo_s_mysteries
Comment by Splinter # January 29, 2010 at 6:22 am
Um, yeah Murdoch doesn’t own the New York Times, and it is definitely not impartial.
Comment by Bob Sackamano # January 30, 2010 at 10:07 am
http://applesandalligatorpears.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/allen275.jpg
Comment by ARE YOU A VICTIM? # January 30, 2010 at 11:44 am
SHIT, I meant the Wall Street Journal. Sorry bub, slip of the fingers. Easy mistake though. Ruprt Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal.
Dabate THAT.
Comment by THeorizer # January 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2T9QIy6uFk
Comment by yesdetroit # January 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Anyone ever hear of Scientology as just a huge money laundering scheme?
Berrics funded by Scientology?
Comment by Overheard # February 1, 2010 at 12:03 pm