Blog Catalog

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

We must overturn the Supreme Court's "Citizen United" ruling

Corporations are not people. "James Madison and Thomas Jefferson warned Americans to beware of the political ambitions of that system’s managerial class. Madison feared that the “spirit of speculation” would lead to “a government operating by corrupt influence, substituting the motive of private interest in place of public duty.” Jefferson hoped that “we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country.” --Bill Moyers, American journalist and public commentator. Please work, for yourself, your family and for the middle- and lower-classes, to help pass this amendment to the Constitution so corporations don't overrun our individual votes and rights. You can begin by going here and signing the petition: http://freespeechforpeople.org/ Thank you, in advance. Link: http://www.alternet.org/story/153349/moyers:_why_'we_the_people'_must_triumph_over_corporate_power/

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

This "constitutional amendment" is a good fund raising tactic, but not practical. The bill of Rights assures free speech. Citizens United is a free speech issue, plain and simple. You cannot "amend" away one of the basic rights. Whether I like what people say or not, they have a right to say it regardless of how soon the next general election comes.

Mo Rage said...

Nonsense.

This is to say that a corporation is an individual, which it patently is not, and to re-level the playing field, so to speak, because their money and that power shouldn't overwhelm the people's votes and voices. That's what leaving this alone would do. The billions of dollars corporations could and would spend--money they're already spending--shrinks your and my voice and vote. The Framers and "Founding Fathers" were specifically against that kind of power.

And when the average guy on the street a) doesn't understand that and b) defends it, I find it both incomprehensible and maddening.