What if the preamble to the US Constitution read “We the corporations of America…”?

This week proved the disastrous effects of a Bush-appointed supreme court, or, to put it another way, welcome officially to the United States of Fascism.

As Rural Woman Zone argues, “The Supreme Court’s Decision this week to remove campaign finance restrictions for corporations means the end of participatory democracy.”

In another good post on this catastrophe, Rodrigue Tremblay of Dissident Voice argues we are now a plutocracy, or a “political system characterized by ‘the rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.’”

As Tremblay continues, “the Roberts Court has thus abolished the laws governing American electoral financing and removed limits to how much special money interests can spend to have the elected officials they want. The government they want will largely be ‘a government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.’”

People have been warning that the US is moving further and further away from democracy, a move that Naomi Wolf warns will be “The End of America” (the same title as her 2007 book, which she discusses here.)

Listening to talk about the recent Supreme Court decision on the radio and around the blogosphere, the following notion rules the (right) airwaves “we can’t limit the first amendment rights of a corporation because that would be un-American.” This argument is based on the faulty notion, writ into law ages ago, that a corporation IS a person and deserves the same free speech rights as a person. Stephen Colbert mocks this idea, noting “corporations do everything people do – except breathe, die, and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs in the Hudson River.”

One of the best anti-corporate sources of information I can recommend to those worried about the increasing corporatization of our world is the Canadian documentary The Corporation.

The clip below is especially pertinent to the supposed personhood of corporations:

As Noam Chomsky notes in the above clip, corporations have no moral conscience (unlike most humans, Bush excluded). Would you want Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Wal-Mart, or Citi-Group making moral decisions on your behalf? Would you even want them as a Facebook friend? Hell no!

A corporation is not a person!!! Corporations are ruled by the “bottom line,” or how to make as much profit as possible. They could care less about the environment, social justice, or your Facebook status update. Due to their profit-motives, they tend to lean to the right or very far right and their political contributions will aim to make the US as anti-progressive as you can imagine.

As a dear friend joked recently,

“How do you spell fascism?”

“F-a-c-s-i-s-m” I replied.

“Nope,” he quipped. “U-S-A.”

If you’re worried about this ruling (and if you are not, you should be), go here for a petition and other activist links.

6 thoughts on “What if the preamble to the US Constitution read “We the corporations of America…”?”

  1. That’s a great line “We the Corporations of America.”

    it is also what happens when non moderate political figures get elected, and fill their cabinets with even more influential ideologues, and Congress does not duly exercise it’s check upon Executive judicial appointment indiscretion.”

  2. Do you even know what “fascism” means?

    You sound about as ignorant as people who call anyone that disagrees with them a nazi.

    I never quite get the feminist anti-profit bottom line, considering your kind often tells women they’re worthless unless they’re in a high paying career.

    1. Uh,
      Your use of the phrase “your kind” lands you in the uber-troll department. And, as you are intent on accusations of ignorance, I would suggest you look in the mirror – feminism is not a one message/one belief system nor does it operate via the tenet that women are worthless unless they are in a high paying career. That’s about as crazy as a claim as calling the US a true democracy.

      1. The US is a representative democracy, and always has been.

        A “true” (or more accurately direct) democracy doesn’t rely on representatives.

        That’s grade school knowledge of the government.

        I would expect you to know that.

        Yeah, generally, look at feminist sites. Woman chooses to have a child, and actually care for it herself? Her choices are called into question, feminists assume and attack and act as though she was forced into it, because no “real woman” would ever want to do that, etc etc etc.

        Feminism absolutely attacks women who aren’t career obsessed.

        What else would you expect me to say besides your kind? I don’t find it “uber troll” (Also, uber does not mean “big”. I’m aware Americans love to use it like that, but it means OVER. “over troll” doesn’t even make sense.)

        You’re a feminist, and I say “your kind”, because whilst there is not one exact set of “rules”, there’s generally a byline that all of you follow.

        Just so happens most of it is roundabout double-standard-choked claptrap.

  3. Uh,

    you really should have chosen the UN ‘Urgh’ – give people fair warning what they’re getting when they start reading your ludicrous bile, hmmm?

    Obviously you know as little about feminism as you do about politics.

    If you can link me to even ONE reliable source quoting a mainstram feminist going on record as saying that a woman making the CHOICE (key word) to have a baby and raise it herself disempowers her or makes her less of a ‘real woman’ then you might have a point. Until then, you remain a muppet making a bit of a fool of yourself on the internet.

    Oh, and by the way, your pedantic linguistic nit-picking (especially contrasted with your sweeping baseless generalisations on the subject of feminism) only makes you look more ignorant than you are. As anyone with half a brain knows, language evolves and gains newcontextual meanings, and international language exchange often leads to reuse of words to mean different things – I assume you are wearing English pants under your American pants, for example. As for the specific example of ‘uber’, an ability to use Babelfish does not make you a linguistics professor – when attached to other words, the meaning of the word changes. Getting back to fascism, the Nazis were very keen on the notion of the Ubermensch – that is, the manliest man over all other men. The Professor’s description of you as an ubertroll – justly applied, I feel – merely suggests you are the trolliest troll over all other trolls. Feel proud?

  4. Professor,
    I don’t understand what the big deal is.

    If Coke wants me to vote for candidate X, and Pepsi wants me to support Referendum Y, then to simplify matters shouldn’t they just say so in their advertisements? Instead of forming a Political Action Committee, such as “Citizens for the Fair Use of Aluminum” or “American Family Fructose Producers”.

    According to Black’s Law Dictionary, (1990) Corporation, “An association of persons created by statute as a legal entity. The corporation is distinct from the individuals who comprise it (shareholders).”

    It seems to me, another way to see corporation, is a group of people, who have a common purpose, who individually are not liable for any debts that the corporation.

    If that group of people, want to take out an advertisement for or against a politician, I feel they should be able to.

    Professor, what if you and I formed a corporation? It’ll be non-profit. Let’s call it “What-If, Inc.”, and our charter is to bring about proper comma usage. What if a bunch of teachers gave us money. And we have money from the fair-trade t-shirts we sell. Should What-If, Inc. be allowed to put out an advertisement about a comma-challenged politician who wants to cut money for schools?

    If, you and I, can gather funds from friends, to advertise against Senator Non-Comma, …why shouldn’t What-If, Inc.?

    I agree with Justice Kennedy, below:

    Justice Kennedy’s Opinion of the Court

    “CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL
    ELECTION COMMISSION”

    Section 3:

    “The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

    I also find it interesting that you, and the blogs you refer to, do not remind the reader that Citizen’s United -v- FEC, was about a small film company wanting to advertise their anti-Hillary movie right before the election.

    I think Coke and Pepsi have more important things to do, than to risk alienating a potential customer. I hear when asked if he had a preference, Michael Jordan said Democrats and Republicans both buy shoes.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s