Compendium of Articles follows:


Supreme Court Decision of, by and for Corporatocracy
[not for “We the People”]


In Your Face Corporate Tyranny? 

You Decide!



"The Court overturned more than a century of law - including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks."
~ President Obama in his State of the Union address to the Nation

[See article: “Open Letter to President Obama”]


“Unless this mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years,
 every politician in this country will be a prostitute.”

~ Keith Olbermann, MSNBC

[excerpt from article below]


"The Supreme Court's ruling today strikes at the very core of democracy in the United States by inflating the speech rights

of large, faceless corporations to the same level of hard-working, every day Americans."
~ Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), who introduced the constitutional amendment which would prohibit corporations
and labor unions from using general treasury funds in connection with a federal election campaign.
[excerpt from article below]


"Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process.”

~ - Statement of Ralph Nader on Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
[full quote below]


"The Roberts Court has turned back the clock on our democracy by a century." 
~ Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), excerpt from article below


Corporate Personhood - The Floodgates were Opened Today
Video commentary by THOM HARTMANN


“This is nothing short of a massive assault on the very foundation of American democracy!”
~ Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen [article below]


"If this Decision Stands, You Can Kiss this Country Goodbye"
~ Rep. Alan Grayson:

The Internet! The Internet? Ask them about the Internet in China. Kiss net neutrality goodbye.
Kiss whatever right to privacy you think you currently have, goodbye.

And anyway, what are you going to complain about,

if you don't even know it happened?”

~ Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
[excerpt below]



The Supreme coup

By Jim Hightower
Creators Syndicate / January 27, 2010


DESPITE 234 YEARS of progress toward the American ideal of equality for all, we still have to battle unfairness.

How happy, then, to learn that a handful of our leaders in Washington took bold and forceful action last week to lift another group of downtrodden Americans from the pits of injustice, helping them gain more political and governmental power. I refer, of course, to corporations.

Say what? Corporations should get more power over our elected officials?

"Free the corporate money," cried the movement's leaders, demanding that America sever the few legal restraints that remain on corporate efforts to buy our elections. "Si, se puede," chanted these assertive champions of corporate supremacy, "Yes, we can!"

Doctrinaire Corporatists

So, they did. "They" being the five doctrinaire corporatists who now form the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's remember their names: Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. These five men, on their own whim, have executed a black-robed coup against the American people's democratic authority.

They took an obscure case involving a minor violation of election funding law and turned it into a constitutional upheaval. Rushing their handpicked case through the system, they issued a 5-4 decision on Jan. 21 that overturns a century of settled American law and more than two centuries of deep agreement in our Land of the Free that the narrow interests of corporations must be subjugated to the public interest.

Indeed, the founders of our Republic saw corporate power as an inherently selfish and perpetual danger to democracy, and most leaders of that day believed that corporate entities should have no role whatsoever in politics. Thomas Jefferson bluntly declared in 1816 that the country must "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations."

Dangerous Disadvantage

The Alito-Kennedy-Roberts-Scalia-Thomas cabal, however, has unceremoniously dumped the wisdom of the founders, along with volumes of American judicial precedent, to assert that poor little corporations today are victims of political "censorship" by Congress, states and cities that have outlawed the use of corporate funds in elections.

Such restrictions, ruled the five usurpers, violate the "free speech rights" of corporations, putting corporate interests at a disadvantage with other political interests.

Disadvantage? This would be hilarious, were it not so dangerous. No other group in American has anywhere near the voice and raw political power that corporations exert every day. Campaign donations from individual corporate executives (and from their PACs, 527s, front groups and other channels) total hundreds of millions of dollars each election year, effectively shouting down the voices of ordinary folks (the Wall Street bailout being but one sterling example).

Yet the Court has just handed these political powerhouses their wildest dream: access to the multi- trillion- dollar ocean of funds held within the corporate entities themselves. Every business empire from Wall Street to Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil to the China Overseas Shipping Company (yes, the five wise guys even waved foreign corporations into our political funfest) can now open the spigots of their vast corporate treasuries and send a raging torrent of their special interest cash into any and all of our national, state and local elections.

Legal Perversions

Two legal perversions are at work here. First, the Court has equated the freedom to spend money with the freedom of speech. But if money is speech, those with the most money get the most speech. That's plutocracy, not democracy, and it's totally alien to our Constitution, as well as a gross distortion of the crucial principle of one person-one vote.

Second, a corporation literally cannot speak. It has no lips, tongue, breath or brain. Far from being a "person," a corporation is nothing but a piece of paper a legal construct created by the state as a mechanism for its owners to make money.

Actual people in the mechanism (shareholders, executives, workers, retirees, lenders, et al.) can and do speak politically in many diverse voices that express very different viewpoints. But the corporate entity, which the court cabal is trying to turn into a Frankenstein monster, is inanimate, incapable of thought, inherently mute and, in itself, no more deserving of human rights than a trash can would be.




The New American Corporatocracy!

A Special Comment by Keith Olbermann, MSNBC - Part 1 MUST WATCH!

Part 2 :


“Unless this mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years,
 every politician in this country will be a prostitute.”

~ Keith Olbermann, MSNBC


Full transcript HERE - Here is a significant excerpt:


Keith Olbermann, MSNBC:


"In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections. None. They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want - sooner, rather than later - they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service. And if senators and congressmen and governors and mayors and councilmen and everyone in between are entirely beholden to the corporations for election and re-election to office soon they will erase whatever checks there might still exist to just slow down the ability of corporations to decide the laws. It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up, no matter whether you are conservative or liberal, it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal, can now be entirely bought and sold, no actual citizens required in the campaign-fund-raising process. And the entirely bought and sold politicians, can change any laws. And any legal defense you can structure now, can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now. And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November, or two years from now, can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014, or 2016, or 2018. Mentioning Lincoln's supposed ruminations about arresting Roger B. Tawney, he didn't say the original of this, but what the hell! Right now, you can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all the time, but you cannot prostitute all the politicians all the time. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts this will change. Unless this mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years, every politician in this country will be a prostitute.


(...) Be prepared for the end of what you're watching now. I don't just mean me, or this program, or this network. I mean all the independent news organizations, and the propagandists like Fox for that matter, because Fox inflames people against the state, and after today's ruling, the corporations will only need a few more years of inflaming people, before the message suddenly shifts to "everything's great." Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't even realize it: today, John Roberts just cut their throats too. So, with critics silenced or bought off, and even the town assessor who lives next door to you elected to office with campaign funds 99.9 percent drawn from corporate coffers - what are you going to do about it? The Internet! The Internet? Ask them about the Internet in China. Kiss net neutrality goodbye. Kiss whatever right to privacy you think you currently have, goodbye. And anyway, what are you going to complain about, if you don't even know it happened? In the new world unveiled this morning by John Roberts, who stops Rupert Murdoch from buying the Associated Press? This decision, which in mythology would rank somewhere between "The Bottomless Pit" and "The Opening Of Pandora's Box," got next to no coverage in the right-wing media today, almost nothing in the middle, and a lot less than necessary on the left. The right wing won't even tell their constituents that they are being sold into bondage alongside the rest of us. And why should they? For them, the start of this will be wonderful."



"Worst Media Coverage on the newest Supreme Court DECISION in USA ever"

 (January 24, 2010)


(...) However, with Haiti all over the news, the momentous story of Supreme court's activism in changing American democracy has been ignored by too many USA media giants and small-town wannabee media conglomerates.  However, Keith Olberman of MSNBC's Countdown gave an outstanding talk on TV today stating that if the Supreme Court had thrown out all spending caps in professional football, all the Sports media would be up in arms and wondering what would become of the smaller NFL franchises once players and teams had the right to gather and spend as much as they want from any source. Yet, as Olberman noted, "The [USA] political press greeted it [Supreme Court Decision] with a Yawn."  Earlier, in the same program, Olberman had warned the USA rightwing pundits to note that the Roberts' US Supreme Court -- America's most activist supposedly conservative court ever -- had opened the door to Venezuelan-owned owned CITGO throwing its money around in USA elections. WORST SUPREME COURT DECISION EVER -- Similarly, like in the USA football parable noted above -- Olberman added that whereby the Green Bay Packers would be forever-bankrupted by such Supreme Court activists if the Court chose to meddle in NFL football agreements the way it has in American election regulations, almost all USA political parties may be wiped from the map: Good-bye Republicans, Good-bye Democrats, Good-by any hoped-for progressive third party. Bob Edgar of Common Cause added, "We have to immediately press Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act -- public financing of campaigns. It's the only way ordinary people can have a fighting chance that we won't be completely overwhelmed by special interests. We also must make it clear that corporations, unions, or anyone else exploiting the Roberts Court's indefensible ruling will be exposed to public scrutiny. We'll have to act fast if we want to prevent the 2010 elections from becoming a special interest-driven tragedy. With spending limits thrown out, corporations and unions could spend as much as $6 billion to directly influence the election of candidates in 2010. And that's just if they match what they spend lobbying Congress in an election cycle. As massive corporate spending goes flying into campaigns, the opportunity to make progress on critical issues like health care and energy will go flying out the window. We can't let that happen."


With a stroke of a pen, American history has been transformed with no justification for reversals.


Bob Edgar Discusses Citizens United Case with Keith Olbermann (January 22, 2010)

Bob Edgar, President of Common Cause, appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Friday evening to discuss the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, and solutions like the Fair Elections Now Act. Watch Bob's segment below.


Obama condemns court ruling on corporate donations (January 24, 2010)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday strongly criticized a Supreme Court ruling removing limits on corporate donations for political campaigns, saying it was a major victory for banks and oil and health insurance companies. "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement. "We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."


Obama Blasts Supreme Court's Decision on Spending Limits (Jan 24, 2010)

President Obama is vowing to fight last week's 5-4 Supreme Court vote to lift limits on campaign spending by corporations, unions, and other organizations.In his weekly address, Obama dedicated several minutes to express his reaction to the decision. He said one reason he ran for president was that the voices of everyday Americans weren't being heard over powerful special interests in Washington. He also emphasized progress his administration has already made. "In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests," said Obama in his weekly address. "On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers." Obama added that his administration has also barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials, imposed restrictions to prevent the loss of economic recovery funds, and publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House. But he said the Supreme Court's decision is a step in the wrong direction. "This ruling strikes at our democracy itself," he said. "The Court overturned more than a century of law - including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks." Obama said the ruling "opens the floodgates" for unlimited special interest money to flow "into our democracy." He says that it gives special interest lobbyists "new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way-or to punish those who don't." "Even foreign corporations may now get into the act," said Obama. "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest." He added that it will also make it more difficult to pass "common-sense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections." The final note of Obama's comments on the ruling was his reiteration of a previous statement that his administration will begin working with Congress immediately "to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision," and they have already begun.


Shed a Tear for Democracy: Supreme Court's Decision Will Unleash Flood of Corporate Money in Elections;

Public Citizen Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Decision



Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen


This is nothing short of a massive assault on the very foundation of American democracy!

Just hours ago, the Supreme Court gave Corporate America a green light to use its immense wealth to buy elected officials.

The court's shocking decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down 60 years of legal precedent prohibiting corporations from making campaign expenditures to attack or support political candidates.

The court ruled that the First Amendment - designed to protect the speech of real, live humans - guarantees for-profit corporations the right to influence elections.

This is nothing short of a massive assault on the very foundation of American democracy.

We must fight back. The lines are clearly drawn. People v. corporations.

That's why Public Citizen is launching a historic campaign to pass a constitutional amendment on behalf of human beings. To restore human beings to the center of the political process. To say no to unfettered corporate power. And we need your help.

In the wake of the court's decision, corporations can pour virtually unlimited amounts of cash into political campaigns. If candidates challenge the corporate agenda, they will be buried under mountains of corporate cash. If candidates do the bidding of a corporation, they will be rewarded from corporate America's bottomless treasury.

The only surefire solution to a corporate takeover of American democracy is a constitutional amendment re-establishing that First Amendment protections (except for freedom of the press) do not apply to for-profit corporations.

Corporations are not human beings. Corporations should not be free to use their massive concentrations of financial power to drown out the voices of real people.


Please watch this special video on what Public Citizen is doing in response to the Supreme Court's decision...


Don't let corporations steal our elections


After watching the short video, you can take immediate action by signing the Citizen's Free Speech Petition at and stand with your fellow humans against corporate power.

And I need you to forward my email to your friends and family. Urge them to watch the video and sign the Citizen's Free Speech Petition, too.

In the coming weeks and months, you will be hearing more about Public Citizen's nationwide mobilization to protect the speech of human beings. You will be asked to participate, agitate and organize. The framers of the Constitution did not intend for the First Amendment to apply to for-profit corporations, and it shouldn't. We are not now going to surrender our democratic institutions to the control of powerful corporations.

Help us fight back.

Join Public Citizen's grassroots mobilization. Help us take back our democracy.

Join the campaign!

Robert Weissman, President




WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;

WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections;

WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;


WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy;

WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government;


Now hereby be it resolved that we the undersigned voters of the United States call upon the United States Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.


Add your name to the petition to Congress today!  - For US citizens only


Learn More...


- The Problem

(...) How Much New Corporate Money in Elections Might We See?  It is impossible to predict how much corporate and union money will flood into our elections in an unregulated system, but it is reasonable to assume it would be very substantial indeed - and possibly overwhelming in selected races of particular interest to the business or labor communities. Special interest groups primarily funded by corporate money spent conservatively about $50 million on TV ads promoting or attacking federal candidates just in the last two months of the 2000 election, up from $11 million just two years earlier.  Corporations and unions chipped in another $500 million in "soft money" contributions in each of the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, due to a loophole in federal election law.  These loopholes were largely closed with passage of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, which added two powerful pillars to the campaign finance law: first, broadcast ads that mention a candidate, target the candidate's voting constituency and air within 60 days of a general election cannot be paid for by corporate or union funds; and second, soft money contributions to parties and federal candidates are prohibited.  Although the McCain-Feingold law was upheld almost in its entirety by the Rehnquist Court in its 2003 decision, McConnell v. FEC, today's Roberts Court began to whittle away at the law in its 2007 decision, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. The new loophole caused by the Roberts Court immediately resulted in another $100 million in corporate spending on TV electioneering ads in the last two months of the 2008 election.  This is just the tip of the iceberg. Corporations have long shown a willingness to spend and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each election through loopholes in the law. Now that the Court has invalidated restrictions on corporate political spending, expect a flood of new money into the 2010 congressional campaigns, state candidate campaigns, judicial elections, and the 2012 presidential election. CLIP


- The Solutions

- Constitutional Amendment FAQ

- The Supreme Court's Decision (.pdf)

- What we told the Supreme Court (.pdf)

- Statement of Public Citizen's president

- Press statements

- Get the latest from CitizenVox blog




Related video and articles:


Bill Moyers Journal (video)

Explores What The Supreme Court's Decision Means For Campaign Finance Reform And The Future Of Our Democracy With Legal Experts Monica Youn, Of The Brennan Center For Law And Justice At NYU School Of Law And Zephyr Teachout, Of Fordham University's School Of Law.


More members of Congress oppose Supreme Court decision (January 21, 2010)

Members of Congress are coming up out of the woodwork to join the call to action to combat the Supreme Court's disatrous decision in Citizens United v. FEC. In Politico, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is saying:  "The Roberts Court has turned back the clock on our democracy by a century."  [...] He called the decision "disastrous" and "scandalous." He portrayed the decision as a victory for Wall Street. "Now robber barons can act like parasites, attacking the roots of our democracy," Schumer said. Schumer's metaphor may be unappetizing, but it is accurate. In a statement, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is showing support for the solutions: "Congress must move to make it clear that free speech is meant for individuals and not for corporations," he said. "Congress must address the incongruous and undemocratic outcome of this inflation of corporate power, starting with passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, in order to begin to return the electoral process back to the American people."  Well said, Rep. Grijalva. Let's hope your colleagues are listening.


John McCain, Russ Feingold diverge on court ruling (1/21/10)

Russ Feingold is seething mad. John McCain is giving more of a disappointed shrug. These senators whose names were associated with the landmark campaign finance bill that was partially overturned by the Supreme Court on Thursday had divergent reactions. Their positions reflect the impact the ruling may have on each of their parties-and House Democrats have already introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution and reverse the decision. "This decision was a terrible mistake," said Feingold, echoing sentiment among Democrats that the ruling would open the floodgates for corporate money in elections. "Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president."  McCain, whose party leaders praised the court decision, wasn't as tough as Feingold. "I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions," he said. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) introduced the constitutional amendment, which would prohibit corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds in connection with a federal election campaign. "The Supreme Court's ruling today strikes at the very core of democracy in the United States by inflating the speech rights of large, faceless corporations to the same level of hard-working, every day Americans," Boswell said in a statement. Democratic leaders vowed to try to use legislation to roll back as much of the decision as possible before November's midterm elections. But that would add another controversial item to a stalled Senate agenda already stacked with big ticket items like climate change-and the ruling was written so tightly it's unlikely legislation can make a significant dent. "The decision could not have been clearer," said Michael Zolandz, who directs the political practice at K Street's Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP. "The ability to restrict independent expenditures is rendered very, very, very limited-if nonexistent-by the court's decision today."  Most Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who fought the bill from the beginning, are celebrating. "For too long, some in this country [corporations] have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these [corporate] groups," McConnell said.

(... Continued HERE) Connecticut Rep. John Larson, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, introduced legislation to create a new system of public financing for candidates. That bill would not change any aspect of the ruling, but would create a system of government matching funds for candidates funded by large numbers of small donors. A new coalition is already calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to change the ruling. "In this decision, a handful of unelected judges have revealed their agenda to expand the influence of corporations at the expense of the rights of individuals, and it will not stand the test of time," said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy and former chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Will the Citizens United Ruling Let Hugo Chavez and King Abdullah Buy U.S. Elections? (January 22, 2010)

While political observers have dissected much of yesterday's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, one potentially huge (and probably unintended) consequence has gotten little notice: the impact the decision could have on foreign government spending on federal campaigns.  The ruling essentially gives corporations the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. This means that candidates who support, say, increased restrictions on tobacco products could find themselves up against the corporate treasury of say, a major American tobacco company. And even the fear of $10 million in attack ads blanketing the airways come re-election time may give sitting legislators pause before taking on moneyed industries.  But it's one thing for U.S. firms to have their say. What about foreign companies that operate U.S. subsidiaries? Many of these, like American businesses, are owned by ordinary shareholders - but a host of others are owned, in whole or in part, by the foreign governments themselves.  One prominent example is CITGO Petroleum Company - once the American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.  And it's not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston's Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM's PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government's Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore's APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.


The Supreme Court Just Handed Anyone, Including bin Laden or the Chinese Govt., Control of Our Democracy (January 22, 2010)

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.  The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.  The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.  I'm losing sleep over the millions - or billions - of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.  Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA. But under  today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.  Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.  Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names." CLIP  [Not to mention the unfettered electioneering of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banks and Big War sponsors of Big Media who are all celebrating this Big Business collusion with Big Government for a Big Brother New World Odor that stinks to high heaven. CR]


"Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars. This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow "King Corporation" and restore the sovereignty of "We the People"! "

- Statement of Ralph Nader on Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission



In responded to Ralph Nader's statement above, Ron wrote:

"The three fundamental underpinnings for the global slave matrix in which we live are:

"1. Allowing private individuals to create money out of nothing and charge interest (usury) on that imaginary money.

"2. Allowing private individuals to create fictional persons (ie corporations) which are then given the rights and privileges of sovereign human beings PLUS rights unavailable to sovereign human beings, namely: - Immortality - the right to legally exist forever;- Omni-presence - the right to be legally everywhere at once via agents; - Protection from imprisonment - because corporations are not corporeal they cannot be incarcerated; nor are they spirits and hence they are amoral and not 'personally' responsible for actions done in their name; - Owners of corporations are generally exempt from personal liability for crimes committed by agents of the corporations they own, and are ordinarily NOT responsible for financial losses and/or debts created by the so-called corporate personalities they own.

"3. Allowing private individuals elected or appointed to RE-PRESENT the views and interests of those who appoint or elect them, to secretly establish and operate corporations that are then touted as being "governments" with so-called legal powers and rights to coerce, tax and incarcerate the sovereign human beings  who have elected or appointed them to RE-PRESENT their views. ALL of these situations are absurd. Ralph Nader only goes half way towards advocating the correction of one of these absurdities. His solution is not enough since the very Congress he relies on and the associated US "government" are corporations and he not only fails to address that but assumes their continuation. The system must be eradicated, root and branch. Tinkering with it is a waste of time."


- Taken from




"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 - (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) - Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)


"They (corporations) cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicated, for they have no souls."

- Lord Edward Coke


"Criminal, n. A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation."

- Howard Scott


"Corporations are businesses run solely for profit, greed, power, control."

- Henriette Matthijssen


"This is a totally egregious ruling by the Supreme Court. When is an intelligent Supreme Court going to understand the distinction between a person and a corporation regarding many issues? This is not a free speech issue, it is just a pass to pursue grossly unjust "bought & paid for candidates". Obviously big money interests are just licking their chops. We lost Paul Wellstone, an advocate for fair campaigns. Doris Haddock, AKA "Granny D" walked across America at the age of 90, ten years ago, raising grassroots awareness about the importance in a democracy, (not a corpocracy), for individuals to be heard. By the way "Granny D"'s 100th birthday is on January 31st. A celebration is being held in Dublin, NH where she lives. She is a patriot and a heroine. Where will you be that day and what will you be doing? "

- Carlos Nunez


"Even the illusion of democracy in our country died yesterday. It's time to repeal the ridiculous notion that Corporations are people and deserve to be protected by the Constitution!"

- Guy Zahller


"The momentum for Justice for the citizens (not the wealthy) of these United States, is faltering. If we don't act now, it will be too late and we will doom our children to the world of our nightmares."

- April Lee


"It is unethical to put corporations in the same legal status as human beings: corporations are enormously wealthy and powerful, capable of wielding power no citizen could aspire to. Corporations never die. Indeed, they are not alive. Thus to construe corporations as persons is absurd. Ban this unjust, inequitable, illogical privilege that should never have been extended to corporations in the first place."

- Marthe Reed


"Allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on campaigns is contrary to democracy itself, enabling corporations to buy our government. This clearly goes against the best interests of the public and the country. We need more, not fewer, reasonable controls on corporate power."

- Diane H Fabian


"It is we the people not we the corporation. Heaven help us now."

- Arthur Deckard


"The founding fathers did not intend to provide international or national corporations the right to dictate public policy to American citizens. The egregious behavior of the Supreme Court is large scale treason and they should be tried as traitors. They have negated the popular vote and their intent seems to be clear: The Supreme Court has shown they hate the Constitution and all the non-rich Americans. If there was ever a reason to impeach Supreme Court justices, now is the time."

- Thelma Straayer


"We have a duty to look after each other. If we lose control of our government,
then we lose our ability to dispense justice and human kindness.
Our first priority today, then, is to defeat utterly those forces of greed and corruption
that have come between us and our self-governance."

- Doris Haddock, who just turned 90, taken from her website at


“I have sworn before the alter of god, eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

 - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to B. Rush, Sept. 23, 1800, and written
in stone on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC




January 22, 2010


By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor /

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a "corporation" is a person, not a "regular person" but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all heretics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The "corporation/person" that the 5 judges, the "neocon" purists, have turned the United States over to isn't even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown, are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don't vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this "gang of five" bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 "justices" have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law.  Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.

No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company. Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels? Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative.  How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new political "influencers?"


- continued at:


<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>



Corporate law has established that shareholders come before the public whenever profits are at stake.


From the beginning of the U.S. Republic (a government of Constitutional law, NOT “democracy”
(which the Founders knew led to mobacracy when a majority could vote themselves money),
Jefferson warned that private corporations bid defiance to the laws of the Constitution:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . .
 If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,
 [the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank -CR],
first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . .
will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . .
[witness the offshoring of business and home mortgages as collateral for trade deficits to the Red Chinese – CR]
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
~ Thomas Jefferson, Chief Architect of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd U.S. President, 1801-1809,
in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)]


But while the public has been busy raising families and just trying to survive,
concentrations of corporate power have given rise to the Robber Barons
who have lobbied to rewrite the laws of the land, first giving monopoly
powers  to the privately owned “FED” banking system and then to
mainstream monopolies of the health care system (Big Pharma)
energy monopolies (Big Oil), media monopolies (Big Media),
and now, with this Supreme Court Decision we finally see
how the collusion of Big Business with Big Government
has betrayed the Constitutional laws of the land for a
corporatocracy – a Big Brother New World
 Odor (Orwellian nightmare) that stinks Big Time!


As the Galactic Shift accelerates on the 2012 Timeline,
those with great love in their hearts are awakening
to the realization that little else matters now.
The end of the world as we've known it
includes choice for a new world
that promises a reboot of
the first principles
for framing


"... Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed -- that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
~ Declaration of Independence, July 4th 1776

"Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm,
and whose conscience approves his conduct,
will pursue his principles unto death.”
~ Thomas Paine, Common Sense


Support the global grassroots (Net roots)
rEVOLUTION in Higher Consciousness.
Please network this message freely for
the Net worth of a new global Net reality.