January 25, 2010

S&A proposes a constitutional amendment to ban corporate funding of US candidates and campaigns


So, John Roberts and his corrupted corporatist GOP-installed Supreme Court wants to give corporations the same rights as individuals? He and the four other corporatist pigs on the Court want to reverse decades of settled law, so that Exxon and Wal-Mart can install candidates of their liking ?

There's one way to trump 'em.

There's one way to save the nation.

It's time for a constitutional amendment to ban companies from further meddling in US elections. An amendment that would define the rights of The People, versus the rights of Corporations, when it comes to free speech and elections.

Call it the F*CK YOU EXXON amendment.

It was sickening to see this decision, but it was even more sickening to see the GOP and pigs like Mitch McConnell back it, thinking it would help them win elections.

Don't they realize that liberal companies like Google and Microsoft have a bunch of money too?

This isn't a left-right thing. It's an America thing. And corporations should NOT have the same rights as individuals. What next, they have a right to marry? A right to vote? What a joke.

John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy were wrong, dead wrong, last week. How warped is their thinking? Their version of this passage would now read:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all CORPORATIONS are created equal, and with their funds are superior to the common man. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and Domination over the State and the People.

This judicial error exists because the Constitution and its amendments do not specifically define the rights of corporations versus man. 200 years of settled case law, and prior Supreme Courts not stacked with GOP corporatist pigs, had held a decent status quo. But now that the Supreme Court has been bought, it is up to the People to do what is needed, urgently, via an Amendment.

Time to fix this error. Time to smack down the five activist fringe GOP judges currently polluting the Supreme Court. Quick. As in this year. Before Exxon and friends run roughshod over the US political system, even more than they are today.

29 comments:

Banana Republicrat said...

Call up Grayson, he'll probably even keep the name.

consultant said...

If corporations are by law treated like individuals, why aren't they required to die like people do?

Anonymous said...

"Sashers" is more creative than "S&A"

casey said...

This is like wishing a person like ron paul could become president.Aint going to happen anymore in this country.We are controlled by the corporations with money sucked from the avg joe via the stock market casino.


Is idol on yet?

Anonymous said...

Don't they realize that liberal companies like Google and Microsoft have a bunch of money too?

Can't. Wait. to see (Venezuelan communist)Citgo run some ads when gas prices spike again.

Heh.

Anonymous said...

People like big government

Anonymous said...

.


Remember the Past

those that could vote use to be Property owners

Now, illegals, felons, women and Morons are allowed to vote!

And by 'Morons' I mean those that brought us Obamy!

.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you have all of 68 followers. I'm sure we'll make a big dent.

Anonymous said...

"F*CK YOU EXXON"


Here's an interesting read regarding Big Oil and the circumstances leading up to Bushco's contrived 'Axis of Evil' scenario:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/oil1.htm

Anonymous said...

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." Benito Mussolini

Anonymous said...

.


Hey Fags,

Get over it


It's Obamas baby now!


.

Went2puke said...

Can't agree more, Keith. So how do we go about it? Can you start a petition? Can we do it before the screwed SCOTUS bans the right to petition the government?

yoski said...

/sarcasm alert
Why make the system so complicated. I mean a corporation spends million of $$ on one candidate and in the end that candidate might not even get elected, what a shame and waste of funding. Some corporations like P&G give equal amounts to both candidates, this method is effective but expensive.
So, in an effort to accomodate the voting corporations and in support of their "free speech" right it would be beneficial to put each political office on E-bay.
So for example if you have candidates A,B anc C running everybody can pledge any amount they want to for the candidate of their choice. No spending limit. It's like one dollar one vote. The candidate with the most money pledged wins. It would streamline the entire democratic process and ensure that the one that had the most money put behind his cause will emerge victorious as it should be in any healthy democracy.
It would also keep 'em pesky poor people from voting.

casey said...

I just filled up at exxon and got f@cked over to the tune of 78.50. They are now providing lube at the pumps.

Did any of you ladies go use the services of the male prostitute in nevada over the weekend?

Daphne64 said...

It will probably have to wait until after the next election, when joe sixpack notices how grotesque the campaign advertising has become and will listen to why things have changed.

I promise to help as best I can. It's a good cause, and the alternatives are revolution or total subjugation.

RobertM said...

How about the right to hold office?

Today, Senator Halliburton joined forces with Senators Exxon and ChinaCorp in proposing an amendment to lower the minimum wage to 30 cents an hour....

RobertM said...

re:(Venezuelan communist)Citgo

You do realize that Chavez offered the US cheap gas but we turned it down.

...Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.

re: Yeah, you have all of 68 followers. I'm sure we'll make a big dent.

There were a lot more followers before Keith claimed he was giving up on us. Don't fool yourself- they are more of us out there than you imagine. Just look at what happened in Mass.

Lost Cause said...

I think that this ruling affects unions and PACs more than corporations. Corporations have never been big players in politics. Trade groups (lobbies), unions and other forms of collective action are where the money really flows come election time.

Protocols of the Sasher elders said...

Keefer, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

This issue is irrelevant.
No one will ever be able to control people from doing everything they can to shift things to their own benefit.
Period..

If a law comes out prohibiting funding ‘irrelevant of source’ of political campaigns it will have as much impact as prohibition.

If I passionately believe in an issue that say may impact my children’s education, then I will actively do everything in my power including financial contribution, organize other financial contributions to add leverage to the candidate who “claims” to be on my side.

How many Ron Paul fans here would stop promoting him if Washington made it illegal?

There is no corporation that can afford to compete with the popular trend.

Then how did we get here you may ask, if it wasn’t for corporations buying the elections.
This question is only asked by the losers
Under the assumption that their point of view is superior and the only reason the opposition won was due to ‘the opponents supporters are all dumb and were bought by lots of flashy commercials’.

The truth is you lost because you failed to convince the majority to your side, failed to convince the corporate spenders to your side, failed to convince the mass media to your side.

So Keith, you either supported Obamah because your weak mind was convinced by the exorbitant amount of money spent to promote him,
Or you’re smart and would have voted for him without the ‘paid for influence’ is it then possible that others are as smart as you and would have done the same without the ‘paid for influence’? Sure! Because it was the TREND that enabled the money raising to begin with.

I know, I know this does not support the vast and powerful ungrounded super secret conspiracies.

Is it possible that the vast and powerful ungrounded super secret conspiracies are propaganda tools to shift trends in a particular direction?

Is it really an ingenious idea that ‘both sides’ right and left are controlled by a secret cabal or is it a minority attempting to shift voter trend in their direction?

Maybe the overwhelming majority believes at this time that the people claiming, “ ‘both sides’ right and left are controlled by a secret cabal” would make things a lot worse?

*
*
*
*
In the mean time, the Saudi queens are setting future trends in universities, Internet and blogsphere.
*
*
*
Who is really pushing the 'the secret cabal' story?

Anonymous said...

“Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important—vitally important—that all channels of communications be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.” Id. , at 593 (opinion of Douglas, J., joined by Warren, C. J., and Black, J.).

Anonymous said...

I don’t care who funds whom, close your eyes place the index finger of your right hand in an electrical socket and the index finger of your left hand in your coal shut, with the current flowing sing on top of your lungs “Europeans are smarty pants’s and Americans are dumb cowboys’ to the tune of Guns and Roses Mr. Brownstone.

Banana Republicrat said...

"I think that this ruling affects unions and PACs more than corporations."

It will affect them more, because the will both become irrelevant overnight.

"Corporations have never been big players in politics."

BWAHAHAHA!!!! Half of the PACs have names like "the Goldman Sachs PAC" & "the Merck PAC", YHGTBSM!

LC, please tell me you were just being sarcastic. Please?

Anonymous said...

Keith,

This is OT but I think this blog article from zero hedge is important enough to justify S & A's take on it.

For those interested, please follow this link http://www.zerohedge.com/article/federal-reserve-moral-hazard-smoking-gun-august-2008-goldman-was-willing-tear-aig-derivative

Tim said...

Does that mean newspapers can not endorse a candidate?

investorinpa said...

Keith, you said it was "Roberts & company" to blame, yet Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion....how come no blaming him?

Anonymous said...

If corporations have the same rights as individuals, can we tax them at the same rate as individuals?

How about a corporate alternate minimum tax?

Anonymous said...

"If corporations have the same rights as individuals, can we tax them at the same rate as individuals?

How about a corporate alternate minimum tax?"

there is an AMT for corporations and their earnings are subject to double taxation.

Anonymous said...

"GOP corporatist pigs?" LOL, the democrats are for the working folk by bailing out Shittybank, Goldman Sachs, Bank of Amigo, The Notorious AIG, and the insurance companies.

Ya, not a single democrat was ever or is on the take.

Tim said...

Yup, let's ban all news coverage of elections and candidates, lest there be any editorial endorsement or bias. All news outlets have to be run as sole proprietorships if they are to dabble in political commentary at all . . . and all such comments are to be cash-valued and subject to campaign donation limit. How many hours did you donate to Obama course in the last election cycle? and how much money is that worth based on your typical hourly rate?

BTW, corporations do die. Hundreds of corporations get liquidated every year.