Kucinich interview

[eridani]

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=1868

INDY- Absolutely, but most of the major candidates seem to discover that the winning strategy is to bridge the gaps between a whole bunch of disparate groups using dumb-downed messages and non-controversial issues and as a result, the candidates don't really bond to their constituents or represent their needs.

DK- I think we have to ask a question. We have to ask why have the democrats lost, not only in the Whitehouse, but also in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, and in the electoral majorities in many of the Statehouses. Why did this happen? I think it happened when we stopped expressing what we really believe in and when we stopped connecting with people's hearts. This idea of a quantitatively driven politics eviscerates the electoral body we need in order to win. You know, it's all about polls, and it's all about trying to move towards a mythical middle, so that we can somehow get support from where we think people are yesterday. It's devoid of heart and conscience. It's politics that stand for nothing. So why would people vote for a political party that doesn't seem to have a compass with respect to the following principles. You know we just buried a President, who had no compunction about taking American politics in a direction that was really transformational. I didn't agree with it, but he did it and at the same time he inspired people. He had the courage of his convictions. That's what people respond to, people respond to that.

[SheBop]

1. Thank you for

posting this link. Kucinich is so interesting to me, in part because he seems to have remained incredibly optimistic.

IMHO, however, people are not only suffering from info-overload so much so that they just turn away out of frustration but also because there has always been a sort of 'pendulum effect' and I certainly hope we don't have to swing any further right before things improve for the American people.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. What a lame answer he gave on corporatism.

Federal chartering of corporations? wtf? The problem isn't that corporations are chartered by the states, the problem is that the Supreme Court gave corporations all the rights of natural persons. The only way we will ever rein in the power of corporations is by passing a constitutional amendment reversing that decision.

But DK's answer is just to put make chartering of corporations done at the federal level instead of the state level? What good will that do? It seems to me it would just facilitate corruption.

[mhr]

3. It Would Improve The Situation By Having One National Standard

instead of 50 state standards.

Right now each and every state has a separate standard (law) for issuing a corporate charter.

Presumably, if we had a national standard it would make it easier to monitor the corporations for compliance and it would eliminate charter shopping that the larger corporations can take advantage of.

Once there is a national standard, one could move on the person hood issues you raise. Otherwise you would have to fight the person hood battle 50 separate times.

Finally, by making the person hood issue a national debate, one might have a better chance at engaging an outraged public. As it is, the public would soon lose sight of of the argument as the same issues were debated 50 different times.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. I absolutely disagree.

"easier to monitor the corporations for compliance"

Compliance with what? The rules their own lobbyists help write?

Otherwise you would have to fight the person hood battle 50 separate times.


Wrong. The problem is federal because it is a http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=118&page=394">USSC precedent. The only possible remedy therefore, besides the Supreme Court overturning its own more than 100 year old precedent, is a US constitutional amendment. Which, of course, would have effect in all 50 states.

Some background reading: http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html

[mhr]

5. You Have Missed My Point In Your Zeal To Respond

It seems Dennis is thinking in terms of a two step process of reform.

Step one - nationalize corporate charters, one law for all 50 states

Step two - tackle person hood when a bright light can be shown on one and only problem, not 50 separate problems.

I understand your point that the corporate person hood issue stems form poor rulings originating in the SC. All that is being said, by creating a national law for issuing corporate charters it will then be easier to tackle the corporate person hood issue.

BTW - I have read Thom Hartman's Unequal Protection.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. No, I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I didn't comprehend you.

So please skip the implied insults in the future.

Step one - nationalize corporate charters, one law for all 50 states

As I've already said, that is nothing but a distraction from the actual issue.


We disagree -- OK? That doesn't mean one of us didn't understand the other. :eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Do you think that 2/3 of the states would agree to give up this power?

They would have to agree to amend the Constitution.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Did you mean to respond to me?

Repealing corporate personhood would increase the power of the states that charter them, not decrease it...

[goodhue]

8. Making a Federal Case of Chartering

http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art121.html

Making a Federal Case of Chartering
By Charlie Cray

The recognition of the limits that Delaware's corporate laws place on the public's ability to regulate them in the public interest has periodically caused corporate scholars and activists to revisit the notion that corporations should be chartered at the federal instead of the state level.

The proposal last received serious consideration in 1975, in the post-Watergate reform era, when three pioneers in the corporate accountability movement--Ralph Nader, Mark Green and Joel Seligman--reviewed the pros and cons of federal chartering in their book, Taming the Giant Corporation.

Boston College Law School Professor Kent Greenfield thinks federal chartering needs to be given serious consideration once again as the recent corporate crime wave provokes renewed debate over corporate reforms.

"We have made choices with regards to other frameworks of regulation where we don't want states or companies to compete, for example with regard to civil rights and healthy workplaces," he explains. "With federal chartering, every corporation would be on an equal footing. States would not be competing with each other on grounds that we as a society don't want them to compete on."

Proponents say federal chartering would establish a minimum standard of corporate accountability, and make it possible to bring back some of the other limits on corporations that were once written into charters at the state level. A federal chartering system could be used, for example, to restrict corporations from specific forms of campaign finance or from incorporating in offshore tax havens. It could also be used to require corporations to serve some public purpose.

. . . .

http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art121.html

[goodhue]

9. It’s Time To Federalize Corporate Charters

http://www.business-ethics.com/FederalizeCorpChart.htm

It’s Time To Federalize
Corporate Charters
We can no longer leave
corporate chartering in the
lax hands of the states
By Kent Greenfield

A good many reforms have been proposed in the wake of recent corporate scandals, but there’s one that could make a real difference which has rarely been mentioned. It’s the idea that corporate governance should be a matter of federal rather than state law.

Currently in the U.S., the rules about internal governance of corporations come not from the U.S. Congress but from the various states. There’s an oddity about this: corporations don’t have to incorporate where a firm is headquartered, or even where it employs the most people. Managers can go jurisdiction-shopping, looking for the most advantageous set of laws, since getting a corporate charter is easier than getting a driver’s license. As a result, some 60 percent of the Fortune 500 is incorporated in Delaware, which is most protective of managerial interests. Managers then go back to Texas, California, or wherever and act as if nothing is odd about running a firm with a charter issued by a state having no relation to the company.

States compete to issue these corporate charters, because incorporation fees can fatten lean state budgets. It is no coincidence that the state that has won this competition, Delaware, has taken a largely laissez faire attitude to directorial oversight of everything from outlandish managerial compensation to companies’ compliance with laws. Indeed, Delaware allows companies to include provisions in their charters that limit directors’ liability if they fail to take their responsibilities seriously. Delaware has also refused to pass a ‘stakeholder statute,’ which would allow directors to consider the interests of employees and other stakeholders when important decisions are made.

Delaware courts have long been reluctant to disturb the decisions of corporate boards. It should be no surprise, then, when directors grow complacent and inattentive. Only when such docility costs shareholders billions do they notice that they have little recourse.

* * *

Federal chartering has been a popular idea at various times in our history, most recently during the late 1970s. Corporate crime was in the headlines, then, too, as almost 400 firms admitted to bribing foreign or American officials or making illegal campaign contributions. The idea of federal charters was dropped after the Reagan victory of 1980, but it deserves resuscitation now. If we are serious about reforming corporate behavior and protecting the public interest, we can no longer leave the states in charge of corporate chartering. The only way out of this mess is to have corporate law be federal law, and for Congress or the SEC to define the obligations of corporate managers and directors.

Kent Greenfield is an associate professor at Boston College Law School and a corporate law scholar. This commentary is reprinted from the on-line journal www.TomPaine.com

http://www.business-ethics.com/FederalizeCorpChart.htm