Why we must amend the Constitution to abolish Judicially Invented Corporate Personhood

Image by vj_pdx via FlickrThe Right in this country loves to whine about "judicial activism" whenever there's a decision that they don't like -- forgetting entirely that, in the whole history of the United States, nothing compares to the judicial activism of a former railroad president who was serving as chief clerk for the US Supreme Court and who, with the issue never briefed or argued, inserted a "headnote" (a shorthand synopsis of a point of law) into a case where the point of law in question --- whether corporations had the rights guaranteed to persons under the 14th Amendment --- was never even discussed, much less decided.

This cataclysmic and radically destabilizing notion wildly metastasized throughout the 20th Century, to the point where now, the US high court is best described as the "Supreme Court, Inc." -- happily willing to see even fully innocent people executed, but ever solicitous for the needs of corporations.

This is why we need a pro-human movement all over America, to amend the Constitution to reject the bizarre concept that a corporation . . . a fictitious legal being that consists, essentially, of nothing but a pile of money . . . has the rights of real persons.

Sam Smith nails it:

Judge puts another nail in constitutional coffin

Alternet - Reagan-appointed federal Judge James Cacheris just ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to contribute money directly to political candidates.

Today’s decision extends beyond the egregious Citizen United decision because Citizens United only permits corporations to run their own ads supporting a candidate or otherwise act independently of a candidate’s campaign. Cacheris’ opinion would also allow the Chamber of Commerce and Koch Industries, for instance, to contribute directly to political campaigns.

If today’s decision is upheld on appeal, it could be the end of any meaningful restrictions on campaign finance ­ including limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals and corporations can give to a candidate. In most states, all that is necessary to form a new corporation is to file the right paperwork in the appropriate government office. Moreover, nothing prevents one corporation from owning another corporation. Thus, under Cacheris’ decision, a cap on overall contributions becomes meaningless, because corporate donors can simply create a series of shell corporations for the purpose of evading such caps.

Although the corporate media will deny this, assuming the Supreme Court backs this decision, it will be absolutely accurate to describe America now as a semi-fascist state.

Sam Smith, 1990 - The S&L solution has the hidden goal of moving America towards increasing financial oligopoly. The government is prepared to guide, assist, regulate and tax to accomplish this goal. This sort of economic policy has been seen before in fully developed form and it has a name: fascism, described by Mussolini biographer Adrian Lyttelton as "the product of the transition from the market capitalism of the independent producer to the organized capitalism of the oligopoly." As Italian fascist economic theorist Alfredo Rocco put it, such an economy "is organized by the producers themselves, under the supreme direction and control of the state."