Bernie Sanders: We must stop this corporate takeover of American democracy

[marmar]

We must stop this corporate takeover of American democracy
Unless we can reverse the supreme court's dreadful Citizens United decision, US politics will become a plutocrats' plaything

Bernie Sanders
guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 January 2012


The corporate barbarians are through the gate of American democracy. Not satisfied with their all-pervasive influence on our culture, economy and legislative processes, they want more. They want it all.

Two years ago, the United States supreme court betrayed our Constitution and those who fought to ensure that its protections are enjoyed equally by all persons regardless of religion, race or gender by engaging in an unabashed power-grab on behalf of corporate America. In its now infamous decision in the Citizens United case, five justices declared that corporations must be treated as if they are actual people under the Constitution when it comes to spending money to influence our elections, allowing them for the first time to draw on the corporate checkbook – in any amount and at any time – to run ads explicitly for or against specific candidates.

What's next … a corporate right to vote?

Don't laugh. Just this month, the Republican National Committee filed an amicus brief in a US appeals court contending that the natural extension of the Citizens United rationale is that the century-old ban on corporate contributions directly to candidates and political parties is similarly unconstitutional. They want corporations to be able to sponsor candidates and parties directly while claiming with a straight face this would not result in any sort of corruption. And while, this month, they take no issue with corporations being subject to the existing contribution limits, anyone paying attention knows that eliminating such caps will be corporate America's next prize in its brazen ambition for absolute control over our elections. ...................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/20/us-constitution-and-civil-liberties-us-supreme-court

[rhett o rick]

1. There is some thing very wrong with our system of balance of powers

when the SCOTUS can make laws and they can not be changed by the other two branches of government.

The SCOTUS is acting well beyond their authority granted by the Constitution. But how do we reduce their powers as they have set themselves up as the deciders of what the Constitution says.

Marbury v Madison needs to be undone.

[Guy Montag]

2. Corporate control of the government equals fascism.

The idea that if it is good for business it is by extension good for the people is a dangerous cancer that must be aggressively expunged from the U.S. government.

We are doomed if we don't do this, and we already have slipped so far down the slippery slope to where we could not be in this regard it terrifies me.

[Skittles]

3. and repukes have the NERVE to whine about SOROS

the hypocrisy never ends

[harmonicon]

4. Does anyone else think this outrage is too little too late?

We'd have the government we have now regardless of Citizens United. Was the way those elections were funded really free and fair? I don't think so, but the bulk of congressmen seemed pleased enough with them to not make a big deal out of campaign finance reform (when they did, it was usually in relatively small ways). It just seems to me that the people who were in a position to stop or turn the car when it was headed for a cliff are now complaining about it going over the cliff. Still, they just want to go back to where they were just before they drove over, without going back to question the steps that got them there.

[txlibdem]

5. Our goal should be to FIRE every Republican... from all elected offices nationwide

Clean sweep. Kick the bums out so we can get our democracy back.

(one can dream anyway)

[harmonicon]

6. Who would we put in their place?

How much was really accomplished in the 4 years that we had a Democratic congress? We're not doing ourselves any favours by just electing anyone with a D next to their name. We'd have a better chance at making a change with a smaller, more unified party than with a giant party that stands only for not being Republicans.

[txlibdem]

8. Whatever gave you that idea?

Of course we replace them all with *actual* Democrats. And we should expect each Democrat to vote WITH the President... or face losing all their seats on committees. We need firebrand Democrats who are ready to fight tooth and nail to get this country back from the 1% and their sycophants.

[harmonicon]

9. How do we get that?

Too many who presently hold positions of power are spineless, so who would enforce these things? They didn't even kick Lieberman off of his committees - a guy who is not only not a Democrat by name, but who campaigned for Republicans. The party leaders seem more than happy to keep on pushing spineless twits while marginalizing folks like Kucinich and Weiner.

[txlibdem]

10. Don't forget Grayson and Sanders in your list.

How do we get that? It's not going to be possible if we keep electing millionaires to office. What we need to do is to elect the local party organizers; people who pound the streets and do the real work for the Democratic party. I'm done voting a millionaire into office only to be stabbed in the back by their collusion with the millionaires in the other party for the benefit of only millionaires and billionaires and to the detriment of the poor and middle class.

[harmonicon]

13. That's my point.

If we keep pressing Democrat victory at all costs (one of the costs being having shitty candidates who turn into shitty congressmen because they either have, or can raise, lots of money), nothing will change. Instead of worrying so much about electoral victory, I think we ought to be worried about having a platform which is consistent throughout the party.

[truedelphi]

11. While the DLC marginalized Kucinich as he made his 2008 bid for

Being nominated the Democratic Party candidate, they did him the courtesy of taking all his top talking points and using them to enable Barack Obama to look extremely progressive during the final 28 days leading up to the Nov 2008 election.

Watching Obama talking to crowds in Wisconsin, recorded for anyone to view on YouTube, is an exercise in nostalgia and worse. If only he had actually realized what we thought he meant.

If only he had cared enough to fight one or two battles to get some of the things he spoke of. In October 2008, he pulled votes away from Hillary Clinton, because so many of us wanted to believe that he would not be as friendly to Corporate Interests as her husband had been. Only to see the same economic people in place, and also the same Monsanto clones.

And now the choice will be between him and someone even friendlier to Corporate Interests. Some choice.

[harmonicon]

14. I'm not going to complain about what Obama's done.

I knew more-or-less what I was getting when I voted for him; he's a pretty conservative guy. What's crazy is that even joe-schmoes here on DU pressed having him or Clinton as the candidate because they were "electable". I personally don't think that's really something worth having a feeling about. This is OUR government after all. Someone is going to be elected. People need to stop complaining when they don't get what they want when they didn't vote for someone who promised what they wanted in favour of someone else because that other person was "electable".

[City Lights]

7. I agree we need to stop corporate America from completely taking over,

however, I don't see a Constitutional amendment passing anytime soon. We are too divided. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe people will eventually learn to take political ads with a grain of salt.

[Bill USA]

12. RECOMMENDED!