[Peace-discuss] Fw: Fw: GP RELEASE Greens: 'Citizens United' ruling will...

[unionyes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net>
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: GP RELEASE Greens: 'Citizens United' ruling 
will...


> YES !
>
> David J.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net>
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: GP RELEASE Greens: 'Citizens United' 
> ruling will...
>
>
>> So you'd agree that the task should be to control corporations, not 
>> speech?
>>
>>
>> unionyes wrote:
>>> Unions, Cooperatives, 501c3's, etc. are NOT the corporations people are 
>>> concerned with. The ONLY reason the above are classified under the law 
>>> as "
>>> corporations " is because there is no other legal definition / pigeon 
>>> hole
>>> for them in this corporate controlled country.
>>>
>>> People are concerned about large global profit making corporations and 
>>> YES,
>>> in my opinion, the global for profit corporations ARE the source of most 
>>> evil
>>> in the world today.
>>>
>>> David Korten's book " WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD " is as relevant 
>>> today
>>> ( if not more so ) as it was when he wrote it in 1992. Korten is an MBA
>>> graduate and worked for twenty years for some U.S. government aid
>>> organization in various countries in Asia. He originaly thought that the
>>> American Business Model was the sollution to world poverty. But by the 
>>> late
>>> 1980's he came to the realization that the American Business Model and 
>>> global
>>> for profit corporations were the problem.
>>>
>>> The for profit corporate entity is monsterous. It has a life of it's own 
>>> that
>>> out lives any of it's CEO's or Board of Directors. Korten compares it to 
>>> a
>>> cancerous cell. That destroys all in it's pursuit for profit, and has no
>>> loyalty to person, place or thing. If I were religious I would almost 
>>> say
>>> that the corporation is the Anti-Christ.
>>>
>>> David J.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" 
>>> <galliher at illinois.edu> To: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net> Cc: 
>>> "Peace-discuss List"
>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 7:41 
>>> PM Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: GP RELEASE Greens: 'Citizens United' 
>>> ruling
>>> will...
>>>
>>>
>>>> [The following is an amalgamated ("corporate") response from comments 
>>>> on
>>>> Doug Henwood's excellent LBO email list.  The burden is that denying
>>>> personhood to corporations is an exercise in missing the point - which 
>>>> is
>>>> to control corporations.  --CGE]
>>>>
>>>> In response to the Citizens United v. FEC decision, there seems to be a
>>>> movement afoot by some folks on the left to amend the Constitution to 
>>>> end
>>>> corporate personhood. See here: <http://www.movetoamend.org/>. Maybe 
>>>> I'm
>>>> missing something important, but this seems insane. Legally speaking, 
>>>> labor
>>>> unions are corporations ("non-stock corporations") - so are all
>>>> cooperatives, and Amnesty International, and the Economic Policy 
>>>> Institute,
>>>> etc. They're all corporations, as is pretty much any non-governmental
>>>> organization. "Corporation" is a legal term, but basically it's just a
>>>> synonym for "collectivity." Is the left in this country so
>>>> hyper-individualistic that it wants to stymie all economic and social 
>>>> life
>>>> not based on the rugged individual?
>>>>
>>>> [What's necessary instead is serious regulation of business 
>>>> corporations -
>>>> democratic control of investment decisions, nationalization of banks,
>>>> redistribution of wealth - as Joseph Stiglitz recommends in his new 
>>>> book.]
>>>>
>>>> ...It's a legalistic, petit bourgeois illusion that doesn't seem very 
>>>> thought through. Not a word about increasing social control over 
>>>> investment
>>>> or worker control over the workplace. Instead, there's an instinctive 
>>>> focus
>>>> on the corporate form itself, as if that were the focus of evil in the
>>>> modern world, to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> unionyes wrote:
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* David Sladky 
>>>>> <mailto:tanstl at aol.com>
>>>>>  *To:* undisclosed-recipients: <mailto:undisclosed-recipients:> 
>>>>> *Sent:*
>>>>> Sunday, January 24, 2010 5:55 PM *Subject:* GP RELEASE Greens: 
>>>>> 'Citizens
>>>>> United' ruling will...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Sun, Jan 24, 2010 8:38 am Subject: Re: [usgp-media] Re: Draft - 
>>>>> GP
>>>>> RELEASE Greens: 'Citizens United' ruling will... In a message dated
>>>>> 1/24/2010 1:34:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, cobbweb at greens.org
>>>>> <mailto:cobbweb at greens.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Many Greens are supporting Move To Amend
>>>>> (http://www.movetoamend.org), which, like the Green Party, asserts 
>>>>> that
>>>>> human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional
>>>>> rights; that money is not speech; and that the right to vote and have
>>>>> one's vote counted must be guaranteed. Move To Amend demands a
>>>>> constitutional amendment enacting these principles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly support the general positions the Greens are taking on 
>>>>> this,
>>>>> and certainly oppose the concept that corporations are persons under 
>>>>> our
>>>>> constitution (and are aware of the controversy over the deceptions 
>>>>> that
>>>>> went into the court allegedly recognizing corporations as people). One
>>>>> caution that I have is that, as a lawyer, having briefly read the 
>>>>> summary
>>>>> of the case, most of the majority decision, and some of the dissenting
>>>>> opinion, there does not appear to be a simple remedy. My concern is 
>>>>> given
>>>>> a court decision that once again seems more driven by personal
>>>>> ideological biases rather than sound legal reasoning, merely 
>>>>> overturning
>>>>> the concept of corporate personhood does not necessarily overturn the
>>>>> court's recent decision. (Restoring a Supreme Court that upholds the 
>>>>> law
>>>>> is the clearer solution). The idea of a constitutional amendment 
>>>>> related
>>>>> to corporate personhood seems to be getting a fair amount of 
>>>>> attention.
>>>>> Something the Greens support for reasons far beyond this court 
>>>>> decision. The website cited above - movetoamend - goes far beyond this 
>>>>> particular
>>>>> approach in a way greens would support, but I wonder how difficult and
>>>>> complex it would be to draft (and more importantly, then pass) a
>>>>> constitutional amendment that would actually accomplish the goals it 
>>>>> lays
>>>>> out
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.