Post Script

Are corporations people? They have personalities. Some behave appropriately; others, like people, are not so nice. Some are responsible; others not so much. Corporations are created by people but no, they aren't people. They aren't biologically born of women and they don't have souls. However, the U. S. Supreme Court in January 2010 ruled that yes, for-profit corporations were—people—and like you and me are entitled to first amendment rights (freedom of speech, which was equated to the corporations’ right to spend as much money as they chose to influence elections).

One of the lectures at the West Denmark Family Camp in July 2010 was "Corporations are Not People," given by Robin Monahan, regarding the U S Supreme Court's decision relative to Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Robin, a retired nurse from Minnesota, and his brother Laird were so disturbed over the Supreme Court’s decision they walked across the United States (3200 miles in 158 days) to raise awareness about the extreme harm this decision will do to our democracy.

I can’t help but remember Granny D who more than ten years ago at age 89 walked across the entire United States to protest the outrageous influence that corporations were having through their lobbying and financing efforts. Oh, Granny D! Things have gotten FAR worse in spite of your aching feet! Now corporations have the right to spend unlimited funds on whatever cause and candidate they choose, and without public disclosure—no accountability.

Robert Weissman president of Public Citizen, an advocacy group working for a constitutional amendment, points out that when you compare the profits of Exxon ($40 billion in 2009) alone, with the combined spending of $1.5 billion in 2009-2010 on campaigns for ALL senate and U.S. house seats—it is easily seen that without restrictions, corporate interests could easily dominate elections. When crucial issues on such matters as health care, wall street, the environment, safety, military spending,—come before congress what senator or representative could possibly oppose corporate interests? No one. Those who might do so will likely not even run for office.

Robin Monahan pointed out that it took .years for the slavery issue to be resolved. The 13^th amendment that abolished slavery in 1865 cost thousands of lives and millions of dollars before it was established that black men were persons entitled to protection by the first amendment. The 19^th amendment establishing rights for women became law only after a long, difficult struggle. How could 5 judges give corporations the right of personhood so easily?

What was Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission about and who are these "united citizens?" The name sounds like ordinary people with different interests coming together. Not so. Citizens United is a powerful conservative advocacy group. In 2008 they produced a 90 minute video attacking Hillary Clinton. The FEC prohibited TV attack ads funded by outside groups. But After the election Citizens United wanted to show it on TV and challenged the ban in court. What began as a fairly technical issue (was the "documentary" an attack ad that should be prohibited?) the US Supreme Court determined by a 5-4 ruling that corporations have a First Amendment right (equating free speech to free spending) in support of, or opposition to candidates running for office. The effect of the Supreme Court decision was to totally negate McCain-Feingold's hard fought legislation to restrict political spending.

We're back further than merely square one. We are in a bottomless chasm, one headed for a society wholly dominated by corporate interests.

Since Congress cannot overturn the decision, the only way out is a constitutional amendment. To accomplish this will be difficult even though 80% of we the people (defined here as human beings) are opposed to the court decision. (Washington Post/ABC poll.)

The most recent attempt to set things right came from Bernie Sanders (VT) and Congressman Ted Deutch (FL-19) who have now introduced a Constitutional Amendment. Sander’s amendment would reverse the Supreme Court ruling. Called the "Saving American Democracy Amendment" the proposed amendment reads in part:

One of many groups calling for a constitutional amendment, MovetoAmend.org, along with abolishing corporate personhood want an amendment that clearly establishes that money is not speech. In their brochure is a disturbing quotation:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of a private power to the point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism."

Ben and Jerry of ice cream fame have spoken on the issue. Ben said he is a person; Jerry said he also is a person. Both agreed that Ben & Jerry is NOT a person. A formidable influence in the 2010 elections, the personhood of corporations will be felt considerably more in 2012.. Prepare for unlimited corporate spending, unlimited attack ads without disclosure, extreme nastiness, and a lot of lying. On both sides. It doesn't look pretty.

jiwww.wikepedia.org; MoveToAmend.org; www.citizensunited.org