so when is one of our candidates going to take on corporations . . .

[OneBlueSky]

in a serious way? . . . as opposed to nibbling around the edges a la Dean, Kucinich, Clark and Kerry? . . . I ask this because there are a few facts that I'm pretty certain about, as I'm sure others are:

Fact #1: Corporations control everything. They finance the campaigns, they define the issues, they even write the legislation. It's a hell of a lot easier for a Congress critter to just have a corporation or lobbying group throw a fund raiser than to go out and ask for individual donations, so that's what they do. In return, those entities have their ear, pretty much to the exclusion of everyone else, and when they want a law passed, they write it up and submit it to their favorite critter(s). That's how our government works these days.

Fact #2: Most everyone knows that corporations control everything. People are not stupid. The see what the Enrons and the Halliburtons and the Wal Marts are doing, but they feel powerless to stop them, primarily because . . .

Fact #3: Most everyone also knows that no politician is going to take on corporations, corporate personhood, or corporate governance in any meaningful way, 'cause that's where they get their bread buttered. They cannot be part of the solution because they are a huge part of the problem.

Fact #4: Most people don't like the fact that corporations control everything, that they can't do anything about it, and that they know their representatives in Congress aren't going to do anything about it either. And because of this, many of them (like 50%) stay home on election day because they know that their vote won't change the way things are.

Now you can accept these facts as stated or disagree with them. But assuming that they're substantially true, don't you think that a candidate who came out swinging against corporate dominance of the American political system would energize a whole lot of previously inert voting bunnies? I sure do.

But beyond that, corporate governance is THE issue upon which all others rest -- defense, international relations, social services, agriculture, the environment, employment, even the electoral process itself. And by not identifying this issue for what it is -- the elephant in the living room -- and addressing it with all of the import that it requires, all of our candidates are abdicating their responsibility to the American people to a) tell the truth, and b) identify and act on the REAL issues that affect our country. That none of them will do so is evidence to me of two very undesireable traits in our candidates -- complicity and cowardice.

I have not yet selected a candidate to support primarily because NONE of them are addressing the REAL issue facing our nation today in any meaningful way. When corporations (which are designed ONLY to make profits and have an eternal life expectancy) are considered persons (which they most assuredly are NOT), their vast resources give them vast influence that makes the influence of individual voters less than meaningless. This reality has been articulated by presidents, economists, social scientists, and others since the founding of our nation. We have been warned repeatedly to beware of the influence of the military-industrial complex. But we haven't listened. And until someone articulates this reality and pledges to do something meaningful about it, none of our other problems are going to be solved. On the contrary, they will continue to get worse and worse until the corporations and those who contol them have control of virtually all of the wealth of this nation. And then it will be too late.

I know I harp on this issue, but to me it's the ONLY issue that has any real meaning. And until we address it and make some massive changes in the way corporations conduct themselves and in the amount of control they have over our government, we can expect nothing less than a continuing descent into oligarchy, wealth concentration and, ultimately, dictatorship of the rich.

If you haven't done any reading on this issue yet, I would encourage you to do so. You can start with some of the posts on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=773912

Ending Corporate Governance (and Corporate Personhood) are issues that people can relate to and will support. What a pity it is that all of our candidates are so attached to the corporate teat that they can't see beyond the cleavage.

[JohnKleeb]

1. On corporate personhood, I believe Kucinich is for ending that

[Zomby Woof]

4. not only that

He is the only candidate who is not a corporate whore. No IBM, Microsoft, or AOL/Time Warner donations, like The Candidate I Shall Not Name received. :-)

[dajabr]

5. Please read the disclaimer in red at opensecrets. (nt)

[JohnKleeb]

6. He's gotten the most money from a group I highly respect

being descedent from Steelworkers, Kucinich getting money from the United Steelworkers of America makes me like him more, he stood up for their mill.

[DivinBreuvage]

2. On the Greek Calends

As the emperor Augustus Caesar would have said.

[dajabr]

3. Chapter 14

Of Dean's book makes it crystal clear he is strongly opposed to corporate facism. The multiple Jefferson quotes gave it away.

I just finished reading it, and he hits your Facts 2 & 3 right on the nose.

Also, being "People-Powerd" will make it possible.

[sandnsea]

7. Corporations are state entities

States charter them. I don't think Congress has the power to do anything about states chartering corporations for starters. I'm also not sure Congress has any power to change corporate law that goes back hundreds of years to Blackstone, even the Romans. So other than 'nibbling at the edges', I'm not sure how much government can do. What are you looking to be done?

Did you read Bobby Kennedy Jr's environmental piece? He really went after corporations, called them fascists, and hit it from the free market economy angle. That when we pay for the environmental and health damage caused by corporations, they're obviously not paying the real costs of producing. It's a hidden subsidy. It's a great article, I think in Salon, if you haven't seen it.

[JohnKleeb]

8. You got a link to what Bobby Jr wrote?

His dad is like a big hero of mine.

[sandnsea]

13. Here you go

This is the article that was posted here a couple of weeks ago several times. You may have already seen it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/11/19/bobbykennedyjr/index.html

[JohnKleeb]

15. No I havent

Thank you though and he looks like his dad.
Sigh Bobby would be so proud of lil Bobby. I hope this guy gets a job in an adminstration as I have been suggesting, secretary of the interior. I hope the Kennedies survive in to my generation's era of politics, I really do.

[OneBlueSky]

14. what I would have them do is . . .

first, abolish the concept of corporate personhood, which is based on a marginal note in a legal case rather than on the case itself . . . second, prohibit corporations from buying other corporations . . . third, prohibit corporations from participating in the political process . . . fourth, give corporations a finite life span, similar to human beings . . . fifth, limit corporations to operating in a specified field of endeavor rather than anything they damn well please . . . these are just off the top of my head, and I could probably go on . . . and other people have other ideas . . . but you should know that, until the mid-1800s:

- Corporations had limited duration, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years -- they were not given forever, like corporate charters are given today.

- The amount of land a corporation could own was limited.

- The amount of capitalization a corporation could have was limited.

- The corporation had to be chartered for a specific purpose -- not for everything, or anything.

- The internal governance was very different -- shareholders had a lot more rights than they have today, for major decisions such as mergers; sometimes they had to have unanimous shareholder consent.

- There were no limitations protections on liability -- managers, directors, and shareholders were liable for all debts and harms and in some states, doubly or triply liable.

- The states reserved the right to amend the charters, or to revoke them -- even for no reason at all.

the folks at http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ have an eleven-point program that they propose as a starting point . . . looking at these isues would be a good place to begin:

1. We can start by revoking the charters of especially harmful corporations who have inflicted mass harm on innocent people.

2. We can recharter corporations to limit their powers and make them entities subordinate to the sovereign people. For example by granting charters (as used to be the case) for limited time periods, requiring that there be a conscious, deliberate act of approval by communities and workers for corporations to continue beyond the initial time in which they have been chartered. For making corporate managers and directors liable for the harms done by corporations.

3. We can address a fundamental obstacle to democratic control over corporations, which is their sheer size. I think many of you are well aware that the largest corporations today are larger than most nation-states. General Motors has gross income greater than the gross domestic product of Denmark. So we need to reduce the size of corporations by breaking them into smaller units with less power to undermine democratic institutions.

4. We need to establish effective worker and community control over production units in order to protect the "reliance interest", an important, if not fully developed, legal doctrine which workers and communities acquire over time in the actions, the activities, and indeed the assets of corporations.

5. We can initiate referendum campaigns, or take action through state legislatures and the courts, to end constitutional protections for corporate persons.

6. We can prohibit corporations from making campaign contributions to candidates in any elections, and from lobbying any local, state, and federal government bodies. And if you think this is off-the-wall, you should be aware that in the state of Wisconsin, up until a couple of decades ago, it was a felony for corporations to make political contributions.

7. We can stop subsidy abuse and extortion by corporations through which large corporations rake off billions of dollars from the public treasury. Please let us not call it "corporate welfare". Welfare should be a positive concept. This is extortion and subsidy abuse and we need to stop it.

8. We need to launch campaigns to cap salaries of corporate executives, and tie them to a ratio of average compensation for production workers (say, five or ten to one).

9. We can encourage worker and community-owned and -controlled cooperatives and other alternatives to conventional limited liability profit-making corporations. They need not be the only game in town, in fact they are not the only game in town. But we need to work hard to expand alternative types of enterprises that will subject themselves to genuine democratic control.

10. We can prepare model state corporation codes based on the principle of citizen sovereignty, and begin the campaign for their adoption, state-by-state.

11. We can invigorate, from the grassroots up, a national debate on the relationship between public property and private property -- including future value -- and the rights of natural persons, communities, and other species when they are in conflict with those corporations.

you can learn more at http://www.ratical.org/corporations/, including links to other resources . . .

the real point I'm trying to make is that this is THE issue that supersedes all others, and it should be treated as such . . .

[sandnsea]

18. I know

I've dug around in this for a long time. I also know corporations are chartered by states. It's nice to think you can get say, Michigan, to stop chartering corporations but that won't help. They'll just go to another state, well now they just go offshore.

As to corporate personhood and some of the things you talk about, it's a matter of legal precedent. I have dug and dug in this and I just don't see how to fix it without legal challenges. The only thing we've come up with is that if a corporation is a "person" then they shouldn't be able to own another "person" because that's akin to slavery, one person owning another. But I couldn't find a federal law that specifically says that it's illegal.

Aside from addressing corporate personhood straight on, alot of the rest of what you say is 'nibbling' and candidates are proposing to take on some of this stuff. Kerry/McCain have had legislation that they've been trying to get an up or down vote on for a while. It has all the corporate pork in one bill, up or down, no amendments, no horsetrading. They can't get it to the floor. People think Senators are magicians I think. They also got some of this stuff out a few years ago. He used to talk about the wool subsidy; saying they thought it was finally gone, but back it came. Clinton used to have a list of corporations that couldn't have federal contracts, they'd broken various laws, etc. Bush did away with it.

It's a real problem, that's for sure.

[OneBlueSky]

23. the way to deal with it is to pass federal laws regulating corporations

that would apply to all corporations charterd by any state . . . as for corporations that take their legal status offshore, you tax the hell out of their products for sale in the US until they wise up and learn that they can't have it both ways . . . if they're American corporations, they have to be chartered here, abide by US laws, and pay US taxes . . . it can be done . . . what's lacking is the will . . . as I've said many times before, as long as corporations control the government, we the people don't . . . and that's just not right . . . nor is it what the founding fathers intended . . .

[sandnsea]

30. Federal corporations?

Does the constitution allow that? I think commerce was given to the states, isn't that right? Constitutional amendment is possible, are you suggesting that? I'm having a discussion here, not an argument. I really have dug around in this and I can't find a way to really control them because each state writes their own laws and the federal came in to make sure they were treated fairly at various points. Blackstone wrote on corporate personhood back in the 1700's(1600's?); so it's not really an 1800's concept alone. Althought the railroad decision really turned the whole thing upside down like it hadn't been before. I would sure like to have them like they were before that.

I agree with the offshore corporations, and other things. Of course Kucinich is serious about corporations, but I also think Edwards really is too. I think he saw enough on corporations during his law practice to completely piss him off. I wonder how far he would go with them if he felt he could.

[Occulus]

41. corporate personhood doesn't go back that far

it dates from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

It's also a complete fallacy; the court never ruled on nor did it hear arguments for or against the idea of granting corporations 'rights' as per the ending of slavery. Their argument was that they were 'freed' just as the slaves were; the court agreed with that position without debate or oral orguments, and the issue was "settled". This case, more than any other, is what corporate personhood is based on.

I've actually had lawyers tell me that that decision was argued and is in the final written court decision. This is untrue. The concept appears as "law" only in the headnotes for the case; the headnotes themselves were written by a clerk with strong ties to the rail industry.

IT should be noted that such a court victory was the end result of a long, hard battle fought by corporations in courts nationwide. Gaining the rights of living persons was their end goal, and it certainly was a concerted effort on the part of a number of corporations. What their victory actually meant was that corporate "rights" are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Ridiculous, of course. By doing so, what we've really done is in fact given corporations greater rights than you or I:

* Corporations can tear off their arms and reproduce themselves in that fashion.

* Corporations can speak with a billion dollar bullhorn.

* Corporations wield vast legal power, far greater than you or I.

* There are entire sets of laws designed to give corporations greater rights under the tax code. See Bermuda +"home office" for details.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Corporations actually are a seperate 'class' of citizen with more and greater rights than we have. If you still don't think so, well.... we can't ban police from our homes, but GM can and does.

Corporate personhood needs to be completely abolished, and corporations need to be reminded that they exist at the pleasure of the people, who can just as quickly dissolve the corporate charter.

[depakid]

9. Seems to me that proposing media reregulation on national TV

Qualifies as a pretty bold- perhaps even foolhardy- shot across the corporate bow.

[DjTj]

10. From the Edwards Website...

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/corporate-responsibility.asp

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Edwards, Kucinich, Dean and Sharpton.

So far.

[slinkerwink]

12. Dean did.

[demindepublican]

16. ...and here's the link !

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=commonsense

[ThirdWheelLegend]

17. "as opposed to nibbling around the edges..."

"... a la Dean, Kucinich, Clark and Kerry? . ."

Kucinich nibbling around the edges?

http://www.kucinich.us/peoplepower.php

He has been fighting corporations since 1977.

He has the strongest position against NAFTA.

"What a pity it is that all of our candidates are so attached to the corporate teat that they can't see beyond the cleavage."

Kucinich owes nothing to corporations. He has proven he will stand up to them even when he puts his career at risk.

TWL

ON EDIT: Here are more specific links from DK's site.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/corporations.php

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/economicjustice.php

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/rightsworkers.php

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/trade.php

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/militaryspending.php

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/water.php

[minkyboodle]

19. agreed

Sometimes I wonder if people even bother to look up Kucinich's view on things and they just lump him in with their image of presidential candidates.
Scott
PS Legend... Legend. Third wheeeel Legeeend. Always in the wayyyaaayayeahoooohhhhaaayea
(Mr Show Rules)

[ThirdWheelLegend]

21. subthreadjack

YAY MR SHOW! :)

"Sad songs are the key to get tears out of eye jail."
(that has to be one of my favorite Mr. Show lines... from season 4)

TWL

I will post a thread in the Lounge so we do not threadjack this.

[sandnsea]

20. 1997, Corp. Subsidy Reform Act

The Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act establishes criteria for reviewing corporate subsidies. It addresses programs and tax policies whose primary beneficiaries are profit-making enterprises, and which provide a public benefit that is less than the cost of the program to taxpayers. And it addresses policies and programs which provide an unfair competitive advantage or financial windfall.

The bipartisan legislation is sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Thompson, Senator Russell D. Feingold (D-WI), Senator John Glenn (D-OH) and Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA) among others.

http://govt-aff.senate.gov/021397.htm

[FDRrocks]

22. Dennis spitting in the face of

the M/I complex makes him fine by me. He covers the basics in his campaign speeches. I have no doubt the man looks down on corporate bribes (lobbying).

Bless Dennis. He is the real deal. A true liberal. The other nominees probably wince at his integrity.

[juajen]

24. I believe stopping corporations now that they rule, is near to

impossible. The Board of Directors of large corporations are usually intermingled and the power they wield is formidable. Like the nobility of old, they can only be overcome by revolution. All of those laws that no longer exist were put into place because of the nobility/serfdom in the old countries. Once they were overcome, the deed was done. They rule. "Let them eat cake" is certainly their attitude. Do away with overtime; don't let them take meaningful vacations; no healthcare; low minimum wage; no unionization, etc.

Face it, we are now serfs. My daughter, who has two degrees and is very good at her job, works on commission. She gets no paid vacation. In order to take a vacation, she has to take this loss, and with two children to raise and care for, she simply cannot afford to lose more than a couple of days. She has health insurance, but the deductible is $2,000.00; she has no pension plan and her children are uninsured because she cannot afford the insurance. I know being a single mother is hard, but this is ridiculous. She would not be able to make it if we didn't help her care for her children.

I have other children, more examples of serfdom. I am sure that there are senators and representatives who would like to change things. However, as demonstrated, this just isn't going to happen.

I am 62 years old. I have never seen things so wrong in my lifetime. It seems corporations have a stranglehold on America. Unfortunately, there are way too many people who don't even see a problem. You know these people; they don't even vote in some instances, and, if they do, it's usually an uninformed vote. Until more people realize the state we are in, I see no way out of our quagmire, let alone the Iraq quagmire. Electing someone fairer and more responsible is just a beginning. It is extremely brave for anyone to run for President under these circumstances, and, IMHO, they will only be able to put a finger in the dike.

[cryofan]

38. Great post! What about getting proportional representation?

Really good to see that someone else besides me sees what is going on, and appreciates the gravity of the situation. It really seems to be a LOT better over in western europe. What seems to help is having an electoral system using proportional representation. Those countries in Europe that have this and have many parties, do have a high rate of voter participation (often 70, 80, or even over 90% of eligible citizens vote!

We MUST be able to do something about this. What is the first step?

[RamseyClark22]

25. hmm

maybe when our guys stop keeping the auto unions in their pockets. I don't see how repukes getting oil money from that industry is any worse, auto industry/unions drive the need for that oil anyway.

[sandnsea]

26. It's the workers fault???

They decide the kinds of cars that will be built? They decide where the R&D money will go? How is it the unions fault?

Playing along here, I'm suspecting you may not last long. Been wrong before though.

[RamseyClark22]

27. sorry

forgot they had a gun to their head when they went and worked there, after driving to the factory in their gas guzzlin ford of course:)

[sandnsea]

28. Try harder

They don't pass the budgets giving oil companies massive tax credits. They don't sit in on board meetings and decide what kind of car to make. They have absolutely nothing to do with anything besides showing up for work. Because some guy goes to work he's suddenly responsible for everything the government and billionaire CEO's do? Explain that please. Try to think and make a cohesive argument and stuff.

[RamseyClark22]

29. Yea

I know they dont pass 'massive tax cuts for oil companies'. I said they are auto industry workers didn't i? lol.

Keep on building those gas consuming machines and critizing the right for capitalizing on our parties hypocrisy.

[sandnsea]

31. That was enlightening

So what do the auto industry workers have to do with the decisions the government and auto industry make? What do the unions have to do with with the government and auto industry continuing to rely on only fossil fuels and not expanding into other types of vehicles? Something specific? A reference? A cohesive arguments with quotes and stuff?

"our party" cute, really cute.

[RamseyClark22]

32. are you

denying that the auto factory workers put the cars together? Wow ceos do more work than i ever imagined if thats the case. I hear those unions are lobbying REAL hard for alternative cars. lol.

[sandnsea]

33. They can build alternative cars

Oh my god, what a thought!!! A whole new concept. A union can build a gas car OR an electric car OR a hydrogen fueled car!!!! Earth shaking news! Hang on to your seat there, I don't want you to fall and hurt yourself!

Why don't they? Because our largest corporations in the world are invested in OIL!! Bush and Daddy are REALLY invested in OIL!! You think they're going to stop building OIL cars until they've sucked every last drop out of the ground, no matter how much ground water, oceans, tundra, and rainforests they have to destroy?? We do kind of need that food chain we learned about in 4th grade. Or didn't you make it that far??

[RamseyClark22]

34. wow

You can deny it all you want. The auto industry fuels (no pun intended) the need for gas. Yet the auto industry gives its money to democrats while the oil industry gives it's money to republicans. Don't see how one is better than the other. Without one the need for the other will dry up pretty quick.

[sandnsea]

35. That is goofy

Ford and GM do not give their money to Democrats. That is the auto industry.

Unions give to Democrats because they fight for labor to get its fair portion of the earnings generated by corporations. The worker will build whatever car is stuck on the assembly line.

[Occulus]

42. At the turn of the century,

100 years ago, that's almost exactly what they did, yes.

Read your history. The only things worse than the existence of a union are the conditions that brought it into being.

[0rganism]

36. Sorry, Kucinich is the best the Democrats are going to offer us

for the foreseeable future.

Look at what Kucinich's rhetoric has done for his primary campaign. He's lagging behind AL SHARPTON for goodness sakes -- nothing against Sharpton, but I'd have thought an elected rep with legislative experience could outpoll him in the primaries.

Re-read your Fact #1. Those same corporations use the media they own to define the public opinion of various candidates. Think they'd seriously allow an anti-corporate spokesman to be anything more than a marginal fluke for a major political party? They don't require lip service, but some indication of a willingness to trade laws for lucre has to be present. That alone can make a candidate eligible for the coveted label of "moderate who knows how to compromise".

That's one reason Ralph Nader couldn't have campaigned seriously as a Democrat.

[cryofan]

40. You nailed it! But why are so few people able to see this ...

....apparently obvious situation? I sometimes feel like I am paranoid. But I know I am not. I can see how "journalists" like the NY Times' Adam Nagourney marginalized Kucinich from the very start of the race, and then they pretend that they are impartial. I can see how poll results track very closely the number of media mentions that on news.google.com. It is almost as if what the candidates say has no major effect at all on the polls. It is only how many news stories are published that counts in the polls. The marginalization of Kucinich and other radicals by the highly placed media figures like Nagourney seems to signal other media figures what to cover and how to cover. Am I paranoid? Am I seeing things? I really do not think so.....

[mrgorth]

37. Dennis definitely would

but Dean sounded like he was into it on Hardball. I think he'd do good.

[Armstead]

39. I agree with you but we're not ready for that yet

I agree that the issue of corporate power is THE issue today that almost eerything else flows from.

And we've gotta take them on and change it so they are brought back down to size. And the ideas about the sructual change are good ones.

However, acceptance of the Divine Right of Corporations is so entraneched in the public mind these days that changes on the level you're talking about are far down the road.

Presidential politics is not the venue at this point. I think it forst requires a general reframing of the issue, and bringing it to public attention outside of that hothouse atmosphere.

It requires educating people and cultivating the ground so that it eventually becomes "safe" fpr a candidate to call for fundamental reforms. In thge meantime, Kucinich is doing more than nibbling around the edges. Dean is doing a little more than nothing -- he at least is bringing Step One onto the agenda.

[bobthedrummer]

43. As the young mayor of Cleveland Dennis fought the corporate interests

it was a victory for the people but it caused many years of political exile for him-and he was rightly honored just a few years ago for that fight.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/082603Dong/082603dong.html