If you think corporate power is bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet

[Lorien]

http://action.citizen.org/t/5489/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2067

DON'T GET ROLLED!

Once upon a time, corporate titans bankrolled our elections with no limits. There were no social safety nets, no real labor laws, and no voting rights for most Americans. There were the haves and have nots.

This fall, a century of modest limits on corporate influence in politics could be completely rolled back, crushing progress on health care, the environment, energy, economic recovery … on everything!

The Supreme Court on September 9 hears a case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that reopens the question of unlimited corporate money in our elections. In a stunning move, the Court will reach back and reconsider two other pivotal campaign finance cases settled long ago. The potential result? A century-old pillar of campaign finance doctrine could be swept away.

Sound like a good idea? Sounds so very last, last century — except this time it wouldn’t be the robber barons — it would be the giant, multinational corporations buying our politicians outright.

Don’t let our elections and progress get rolled by corporate power!

PLEDGE TO PROTEST!

Pledge to protest getting rolled on September 9! Everyone can protest — check out our ideas for actions. We want to collaborate and share your stories, pictures, and videos! Send your pics and YouTube links to [e-mail].

[MarjorieG]

1. We already can't see the results of an electronic election. The rest is the theater and preamble.

I'll change that to at least with paper ballot and scanner elections, we could see the results, if we chose to, but we don't.

[CrispyQ]

2. Why don't they just give the corporations the right to vote?

One vote per share of publicly traded stock.

You know this is what they want to do.

Some more info here: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/cu_v_fec_summary.php

k&r

[MrsCorleone]

3. See inside for linky to Huffpo article.

This is a serious case, Folks.

Fascism Coming to a Court Near You

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/fascism-coming-to-a-court_b_226256.html

snip

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, presents the best opportunity for the Roberts Court to use its five vote majority to totally re-write the face of politics in America, rolling us back to the pre-1907 era of the Robber Barons."


"...the only way the modern Republican Party can recover their power over the next decade is to immediately clear away all impediments to unrestrained corporate participation in electoral politics. If a corporation likes a politician, they can make sure he or she is elected every time; if they become upset with a politician, they can carpet-bomb her district with a few million dollars worth of ads and politically destroy her."


Essentially, this case will grant the multinationals the power to directly buy those politicians that vote in their best interests, not ours!

The cynic in me says that this may be in part why Repubs & corporatist Dems have been so deliberately against us at every turn. Perhaps, they believe that John Roberts and his court "have their backs".

[Lorien]

4. Another one that needs attention

but people are too tied up with Kennedy, Beck, etc. to notice.

[MrsCorleone]

5. It is so incredibly frustrating that the very pivotal events are so often ignored.

You may already know of this, but Open Secrets will have a live web chat on this case on Sept 3 at 12ET/9PT a.m.

OpenSecrets.org to Conduct Live Web Chat on Landmark Campaign Finance Case

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/08/opensecretsorg-to-conduct-live.html

Perhaps, directing the peeps here will help those who still don't understand the significance of this case.

[WeDidIt]

6. I fully expect the court to side with the corporations

Five out of nine SCOTUS justices have been bought and paid for by the corporations.

[MrsCorleone]

7. Perhaps, but there is a reason why there has been a virtual media blackout on this event. If the

the peeps don't understand the crux of problem, we lose what little leverage we have left. All our efforts will have been for not.

BTW, I realize that I'm just preaching to choir here w/you. :hi:

[Zodiak]

8. Protesting the Supreme Court is ineffective..they aren't elected

The chance to protest the Supreme Court came and went with Bush's selection in 2000 and the namby-pamby way the Democrats refused to fight his unbelievably fascist judicial appointments.

Now all we can do is sit and watch.

Sad, but true. The time to fight was yesterday.

There will be no real change away from the corporate power structure in this country without general strikes at the very least. We are far beyond the need for protests, which do not more than make people "feel" like they did something when in fact, they engaged in an exercise of impotence.

[MrsCorleone]

9. With all due respect, should we all just succumb to complacency in the post Bush v. Gore world?

Bitchy as my question my seem, I ask w/the utmost sincerity.

[AuntPatsy]

10. No don't listen to people like that...we the people have the power to change...

we just need to utilize that power and quit allowing others to fight for us when its apparent they have no wish to fight for what we need them to

[Zodiak]

12. Then have your protest

And when it gets ignored like the rest, please continue to misrepresent my position as complacent when in fact, I counsel a far more effective method.

Yes, we have the power to change, and we refuse to use it...instead settling on ineffective proscribed methods that are laughed at or ignored....like protests.

[Zodiak]

11. I am not counseling that

I am counseling using more people power than an ineffective protest. "General strike" should be in everyone's lexicon.

[onethatcares]

13. dammit, "general strike" is not in everyones' lexicon

the fucking corporations have shown just what they could do in a very short time. Most of the working poor are just hoping they can make it to the end of their days without losing their homes, their health and whatever small pittance they managed to save over the course of 40 years of labor. They don't have the time to "protest", dammit, they're tired.

[MrsCorleone]

14. I can get on board with that. But, only a few peeps even understand the

implications of this case. How do you protest effectively without a widespread understanding of the problem?

As mentioned above, there has been a near complete media blackout on this case, which should strike most as astounding considering its gravity. The New York Times ran just one measly OpEd a couple of weeks back, and there's been zero coverage via the teevee machine. This is intentional. The complacent &/or ill-informed masses cannot protest what they do not know.

The point of this thread, in my view, is to bring attention to a case that so very few even know about, but that will have such a profound effect on most all of our lives.

Again, not intentionally trying to be a bitch :hi:

[Zodiak]

17. It's alright....I understand your disagreement is not borne of malice

You have a point about the need for educating on this issue, which a protest may accomplish.

Affecting change, in my opinion, will take more than a protest.

[bvar22]

15. My wife & I have been "On Strike" since 2006.

We are no longer Good American Consumers.

Next year, we will "consume" even less.

[Lorien]

18. I'm right there with you

and I don't miss being a "good American consumer".

[librechik]

16. Ah--the prize John Roberts was appointed for.

We won't have a chance until the current court is long gone. I hope there's an America left by then.