"I rob banks because that's where the money is." . . . Willie Sutton . . .

[OneBlueSky]

Willie Sutton had the right idea . . . if you want to accomplish something, best to accurately identify the source of the problem and attack it directly . . .

I posted this on a couple of threads tonight, but they're pretty well buried . . . my hypothesis is that if we want to accomplish anything, we best accurately identify the source of the problem and attack it directly . . . and the source of virtually ALL of our problems is -- directly or indirectly -- the fact that corporations run this country and our government . . . unless and until we take on the corporate government head on, our chances of effecting any kind of meaningful change is about zero . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------

what we need is a central, compelling issue around which we can rally Democrats, Independents, moderate Republicans, and other who do not share BushCo's view of the world . . . that issue can (and should, imo) be "ending corporate personhood" . . .

most people do not know that corporations are legally considered to be persons . . . and they don't know the ramifications of that little idiosyncrasy . . .

I believe that people will rally around a movement to repeal corporate personhood . . . because the issue will provide a platform from which we can address ALL of the ramifications of corporate governance, from industry writing their own laws and regulations, to obscene corporate executive compensation, to moving offshore to avoid US taxes (and other tax dodges), to corporate rape of the environment, to loss of pensions, to outsourcing of American jobs, to interlocking directorates, etc. . . these are all issues that people care about and respond to . . . and, for the most part, are on our side of . . .

there is great potential for stirring voter outrage if we can effectively communicate -- and prove -- the truth about how corporations operate, and how they control our government . . . making the absurdity that is corporate personhood the lead issue ensures at least that people will listen, because most have no clue about this, and will be amazed when they find out the truth . . .

yes, there are other issues that could be used as rallying points (9/11, election reform, Social Security, etc.) . . . but corporate governance both supersedes and encompasses all of these . . . and because it does, it's the perfect vehicle for starting a vibrant populist movement in this country . . .

if we are ever to achieve ANY meaningful change, we MUST take on the corporations (and corporate governance) and return them to being what they were intended to be -- servents of the people, not our masters . . .

[The Magistrate]

1. Indeed, Sir

This is an excellent potential rallying point for a populist up-swell. No one likes the boss, and as time goes on under the current regime, they will like the boss a good deal less....

[Maple]

2. And you've been doing this since.....?

What...the 30's?

[Selatius]

3. You're not going to get help from the Democratic Party here

You're better off delivering this message to the leaders in the Green Party. Except for Kucinich and perhaps one or two others for sure, most Democrats in Congress would not take on corporations or even corporate personhood, I fear. Hell, many of these guys are taking corporate contributions to begin with.

With that said though, you are very right in what you say. What you're proposing though is building a movement outside both political parties though, a real grassroots oriented movement like the Labor Movement or the Civil Rights Movement. The careerists and the corporatists have hegemony over the government itself, so it'll naturally have to come from the outside-in. It's not going to be an easy thing to do. Nothing so good ever came so cheaply, and they're going to try to co-opt your movement by giving you concessions to make it look like you're making progress so that you'll grow complacent and demobilize, or they're going to try to break the movement. If they could take apart the movements of the 1960s, they can do it again, so beware.

[OneBlueSky]

5. precisely my point . . .

it's not "many of these guys" who are taking corporate contributions . . . it's ALL of them . . . and not just nickel and dime stuff, either . . . corporations fund politicians who, in turn, allow them to write the regulations and legislation governing their industries . . . (that's why we still haven't heard what actually happened at Cheney's energy meeting) . . .

I guess what I'm envisioning is all of the various interest groups in the Democratic party coming together around one issue we can all agree on, i.e. repealing corporate personhood . . . is it radical? . . . it's about the most radical position one could take . . . but it's also the ONLY position that will get to the root of most of our problems . . .

if senators and representatives started getting hundreds of thousands of communications endorsing ending corporate personhood, they'd have two choices: to listen, or to ignore . . . if they're smart, they'll listen, and start re-directing the party toward populism . . . if they're not (very likely), they'll ignore, which will at least tell us that it's time to move on . . . and by that time, we'll have the names of a couple million voters who are also members of the reality community . . .

so let's start by bringing this up within the party . . . we'll do the research, complile the documentation (much of which already exists), make our proposal, and solicit support . . . what happens after that depends on how much support we can actually generate . . . if done correctly, my guess is A LOT! . . .

[punpirate]

4. One of the things people need...

... to be aware of in this issue is that even the ACLU is defending the free speech (via personhood arguments) of corporations. I've told them that I won't support them in any way as long as they are fighting for equal rights for corporations, and received a dismissive answer.

The Bill of Rights was intended for natural persons, not artificial persons (which is the legal definition of the corporation).

Everyone concerned with this issue, wants to educate themselves on the subject, should read Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights. It's greatly instructive on the history and ramifications of corporations' assertions of rights equal to humans.

And, yes, I agree--the key to getting corporate money out of the political process begins with a complete reassessment of the rights of corporations. But, that requires making law, and the sorry bunch we have in Congress now won't make that redefinition--therefore, the object first must be to get them out.

Cheers.

[OneBlueSky]

7. all I'm advocating at this point is putting the issue out there . . .

in a meaningful way . . . present the proposal, and start soliciting support for it . . . and use it as a hook to start meaningful discussions of all of the other aspects of corporate governance, the things people REALLY care about . . . for instance . . .

- corporations writing the regulations and legislation that governs their own industries;
- obscene executive compensation;
- moving company operations offshore to avoid US taxes;
- other creative tax dodges that result in most corporations paying NO taxes;
- corporate rape of the environment;
- loss of pensions and employee health care;
- the outsourcing of American jobs;
- the military/industrial complex; and
- interlocking directorates (i.e. the same people are running most of the country's major corporations).

I have no illusions that this is something that we can actaully make happen right away . . . but I do think it could make an excellent vehicle for stimulating a national discussion of the role of corporations in our society and in our government . . . and that's the kind of stuff that can bring people back to the Democrats . . .

[punpirate]

8. Don't expect big-d Democrats to invite...

... this "national discussion." They won't. They are as beholden to corporations for their campaigns and their re-elections as the Repugs.

It will have to come from outside the two main parties, and must come from people who have thoroughly educated themselves on the issue.

Cheers.

[Maple]

6. You are trying to 'rally' people

about an era long gone.

Which is why it doesn't work.

[OneBlueSky]

9. I disagree . . . there's both a qualitative and a quantitative . . .

difference between now and 30 (or 40, or 50) years ago . . . corporate control is so much greater today, as is the number of multinationals and the ongoing consolidation . . . 30 years ago, the vice president wasn't convening the CEOs of energy companies to determine energy policy . . . 30 years ago, there weren't weekly reports of jobs moving offshore, of another corporation cancelling its pension plan or its health plan, or executive compensation that makes major league ballplayers look like retail clerks . . . and 30 years ago, the level of corporate contributions to politicians wasn't anywhere near where it is today . . .

as I said in a previous post, I have no illusions that this will actually happen -- at least not anytime soon . . . but I think it's a great issue to hang our hats on to both go after corporate/government corruption and force our representatives and senators to start talking about it . . . or at least respond to it . . .

people don't like getting screwed, and when you point it out to them, they get very angry . . . I think we can tap into that anger to our advantage . . .

[bleedingheart]

11. The reason we have problems today is because people rested

on their laurels instead of continuing to fight back at corporations.

If not for the populist/socialist/union fight against corporatism we would still be paid in company script and living in company housing here in PA...

[soothsayer]

10. As Brecht says, What's the difference between the robbing of a

bank, or the founding of one?