- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 55,154
- Reaction score
- 36,871
This is kind of a follow-up thread to my Capitalism Crumble thread, because I saw an interview that made me wonder how we got to such a heavily corporate-influenced place where all of us, regardless of party affiliation or ideology, always have some underlying inclination that our voices dont matter. Well, this thread is about why our voices don't matter, who was responsible for it, and why it seems nearly impossible to overcome (but its not, yet).
Lewis Powell - Lewis Powell was an industry lawyer for tobacco companies. He crafted the Powell Memo, which essentially declared that the problem with American "Free Enterprise" was democracy itself. Powell essentially hated Ralph Nader and his work exposing corruption of American Industry, putting profit before people. Powell saw this as a step towards socialism. In other words, the Government was doing too much of what the people wanted, cracking down on how often private industry will kill consumers to pad the margins. Keep in mind Powell was head of the board for Phillip-Morris, and was one of the chief legal factors for tobacco companies in burying the causative relationship between cigarettes and cancer.
Powell first argued in Courts that publishing of scientific research undermined the free speech of the tobacco companies when news agencies didn't give credence to their cancer denials. The Powell Memo essentially laid the blueprint for the modern notion that private industry should have much more say in US politics, laws, and thought in general. Nixon then approached Powell for a Supreme Court position. Nixon, who was being given bags of cash for Presidential favoritism. Nixon, who absolutely WAS a crook.
In his book "Master Plan: The Hidden Plot to Legalize Corruption in America" author David Sirota publishes not only the Powell Memo itself, but also lays out events during Powell's tenure on the Supreme Court. Keeping in mind his efforts helped launch a flurry of budding think tanks and NGO's funded by heirs of wealthy elites, such as the Carthage Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the ALEC, The Cato Institute, and even inspired the Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active. Powell's influence from the bench was to set the stage for the Citizens United decision. But first there were smaller, lesser-known cases that changed the purview of U.S. politics.
Buckley v Valeo - this was the precursor decision that undermined the Federal Election Campaign Act which was passed in an effort to curtail corporate spending, private industry influence on US elections. Buckley declares this unconstitutional as an infringement of Free Speech.
Here is as much as the Federalist Society could sanitize the decision:
First National Bank v Belotti - First National bank wanted to use their considerable resources to defeat a ballot initiative on tax reform. This is a direct appeal of a corporation to the Courts to use their wealth to undermine the public in the political sphere, and was the first case that declared that doing so was a 1st Amendment right.
These decisions were both penned by Powell, and they created the legal precedence for Citizens United to eventually come down, having established the premise that essentially a corporation is a human being. This all came from the Powell Memo:
Since then its gotten worse, as we all know. Corporations can now not only engage in this "free speech" where essentially dollars equate to votes, but the donor class can also influence who even runs in elections by threatening PAC activity against unfavorable candidates. Some US Politicians have even said they use this influence to quash bills they dont like, but are very popular with the electorate. All they have to do is flash that paper, and the politician gets the idea, unlimited resources will be put against them. Similar to what we are all suggesting AIPAC does. There have also been bribery convictions overturned by the SCOTUS because there is a distinct effort to change the scope of what "bribery" means to essentially make it impossible to enforce against. In fact our illustrious Vice President is spearheading a case going before the Court that will erode what's left of Campaign Finance Laws after Citizen's United, and would essentially pave the way for parties to pass donor money directly into the hands of candidates. That would create an employer/employee scenario. Remember how Vance recently answered about Tom Homann's bribery scandal. "There is no evidence that he did anything illegal." He wouldnt answer if the money was kept or if it was a bribe. He knows it was, he just thinks it shouldnt be
So what do we do. Well Sirota pointed out a few things that sound worthwhile to consider if you dont want mega corporations ruling your every movement in this Country. But as I mentioned in the Capitalism thread this CANNOT be fixed from the top down. Not when the donor class first decides who can even run in National elections. Ever wonder why our choices always suck, or candidates who are extremely popular get eliminated by weird circumstances? That's why. The focus needs to be within States. Citizens United says corporations are entitled to the same rights as individuals, however State laws dictate what a corporation even is. Montana has a ballot measure to simply say that, as a corporation, the organization is NOT granted the power to influence elections within the State. And the measure was introduced in a bipartisan manner. Disclosure is also important. The Disclosure Act to shed light on dark money groups didnt pass. But Arizona passed their own version of it. Also think of this: These decisions essentially are based on the premise that a corporation (a false entity created by the State), is entitled to the same rights guaranteed to Citizens, to people, by the Constitution. That seems to call into question what personhood actually is, which seems like a good weak spot for legal challenge.
In reading through a bit of the opinions rendered in the above cases, it's really pretty porous and shaky reasoning. Citizens United even has a disclosure clause that was just never legally adhered to because it was essentially an encouragement of disclosure, not a requirement. But that it acknowledges the essential nature of disclosure seems contradictory to the existence of dark money Super PAC's, funded by people who see democracy as something standing in their way, something "bad for business."
Lewis Powell - Lewis Powell was an industry lawyer for tobacco companies. He crafted the Powell Memo, which essentially declared that the problem with American "Free Enterprise" was democracy itself. Powell essentially hated Ralph Nader and his work exposing corruption of American Industry, putting profit before people. Powell saw this as a step towards socialism. In other words, the Government was doing too much of what the people wanted, cracking down on how often private industry will kill consumers to pad the margins. Keep in mind Powell was head of the board for Phillip-Morris, and was one of the chief legal factors for tobacco companies in burying the causative relationship between cigarettes and cancer.
Powell first argued in Courts that publishing of scientific research undermined the free speech of the tobacco companies when news agencies didn't give credence to their cancer denials. The Powell Memo essentially laid the blueprint for the modern notion that private industry should have much more say in US politics, laws, and thought in general. Nixon then approached Powell for a Supreme Court position. Nixon, who was being given bags of cash for Presidential favoritism. Nixon, who absolutely WAS a crook.
In his book "Master Plan: The Hidden Plot to Legalize Corruption in America" author David Sirota publishes not only the Powell Memo itself, but also lays out events during Powell's tenure on the Supreme Court. Keeping in mind his efforts helped launch a flurry of budding think tanks and NGO's funded by heirs of wealthy elites, such as the Carthage Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the ALEC, The Cato Institute, and even inspired the Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active. Powell's influence from the bench was to set the stage for the Citizens United decision. But first there were smaller, lesser-known cases that changed the purview of U.S. politics.
Buckley v Valeo - this was the precursor decision that undermined the Federal Election Campaign Act which was passed in an effort to curtail corporate spending, private industry influence on US elections. Buckley declares this unconstitutional as an infringement of Free Speech.
Here is as much as the Federalist Society could sanitize the decision:
First National Bank v Belotti - First National bank wanted to use their considerable resources to defeat a ballot initiative on tax reform. This is a direct appeal of a corporation to the Courts to use their wealth to undermine the public in the political sphere, and was the first case that declared that doing so was a 1st Amendment right.
These decisions were both penned by Powell, and they created the legal precedence for Citizens United to eventually come down, having established the premise that essentially a corporation is a human being. This all came from the Powell Memo:
Since then its gotten worse, as we all know. Corporations can now not only engage in this "free speech" where essentially dollars equate to votes, but the donor class can also influence who even runs in elections by threatening PAC activity against unfavorable candidates. Some US Politicians have even said they use this influence to quash bills they dont like, but are very popular with the electorate. All they have to do is flash that paper, and the politician gets the idea, unlimited resources will be put against them. Similar to what we are all suggesting AIPAC does. There have also been bribery convictions overturned by the SCOTUS because there is a distinct effort to change the scope of what "bribery" means to essentially make it impossible to enforce against. In fact our illustrious Vice President is spearheading a case going before the Court that will erode what's left of Campaign Finance Laws after Citizen's United, and would essentially pave the way for parties to pass donor money directly into the hands of candidates. That would create an employer/employee scenario. Remember how Vance recently answered about Tom Homann's bribery scandal. "There is no evidence that he did anything illegal." He wouldnt answer if the money was kept or if it was a bribe. He knows it was, he just thinks it shouldnt be
So what do we do. Well Sirota pointed out a few things that sound worthwhile to consider if you dont want mega corporations ruling your every movement in this Country. But as I mentioned in the Capitalism thread this CANNOT be fixed from the top down. Not when the donor class first decides who can even run in National elections. Ever wonder why our choices always suck, or candidates who are extremely popular get eliminated by weird circumstances? That's why. The focus needs to be within States. Citizens United says corporations are entitled to the same rights as individuals, however State laws dictate what a corporation even is. Montana has a ballot measure to simply say that, as a corporation, the organization is NOT granted the power to influence elections within the State. And the measure was introduced in a bipartisan manner. Disclosure is also important. The Disclosure Act to shed light on dark money groups didnt pass. But Arizona passed their own version of it. Also think of this: These decisions essentially are based on the premise that a corporation (a false entity created by the State), is entitled to the same rights guaranteed to Citizens, to people, by the Constitution. That seems to call into question what personhood actually is, which seems like a good weak spot for legal challenge.
In reading through a bit of the opinions rendered in the above cases, it's really pretty porous and shaky reasoning. Citizens United even has a disclosure clause that was just never legally adhered to because it was essentially an encouragement of disclosure, not a requirement. But that it acknowledges the essential nature of disclosure seems contradictory to the existence of dark money Super PAC's, funded by people who see democracy as something standing in their way, something "bad for business."
Last edited:
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Labor-union_final-9c471e2612264e2dbe615fec1fef17db.png)
