Corporations. Once our servants now our masters.
Foxhound BN0
2012/06/15 14:00:23
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.
After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."
But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.
The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.
Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."
After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."
But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.
The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.
Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."
From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power...."
Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At ReclaimDemocracy.org, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation's founders who struggled successfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level -- the U.S. Constitution.
Thanks to our friends at the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) for their permission to use excerpts of their research for this article.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power...."
Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At ReclaimDemocracy.org, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation's founders who struggled successfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level -- the U.S. Constitution.
Thanks to our friends at the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) for their permission to use excerpts of their research for this article.
Please visit our Corporate Personhood page for a huge library of articles exploring this topic more deeply. You might also be interested to read our proposed Constitutional Amendments to revoke illegitimate corporate power, erode the power of money over elections, and establish an affirmative constitutional right to vote.
Paulson and Bernanke orchestrated this whole thing during the Republican/Bush administration. ~ Keep gulping the Kool-aid down buddy.
Watch Inside the Meltdown on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
"liberals idea." Really?
Paulson, during the Republican/Bush administration started this whole thing. AND, if you switched to a far less lethal drink than Kool-Aid, you would also know that in 1998 Brooksley Born, a Democrat, warned the Republican congress numerous times on the inevitable upcoming recession/depression.
Watch The Warning on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
You really need to stop listening to right-wing talk radio and Fox News cuz they are making you stupid.
Yup, the video is doctored and Born testifying to congress never really happened. Those interviewed from the Republican/Bush administration were forced by Frontline to say what they said. There is crazy and there is whack-job nutter crazy and you are a nutter.
Everyone should sign the petition to overturn the Citizens United Ruling:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov...
Can you post that law please?
ALL THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS!
Obamacare is the latest example of corporatism, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare. Cap-in-trade is another example of corporatism. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate, federal financing of scientific research, agricultural price-supports, "free trade" agreements (e.g., NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.), all of these are modern-day corporatist/fascist endeavors.
This is not a left vs. right issue, both sides engage in corporatism, this is how Washington works today. If there is a single issue where both sides can come together and unite, it's the issue of corporatism.
I think every politician should wear NASCAR style uniforms with patches of all the logos of the corporations, unions and special interests who made donations (investments) in their election campaign. That way, when they are on the House or Senate floor, or in front of the White House giving a speech, or on Fox News or MSNBC, we will know who they are really representing.
Obamacare is left-wing corporatism, but corporatism didn't start with Obama, both sides engage in it. Obamacare is not universal health care, it's not socialism, it's soft-fascism by giving government subsidies to big insurance and big pharma. Have you heard any of the insurance or pharma companies complain about Obamacare? Of course you haven't. That would be like a corn farmer complaining about ethanol subsidies and mandating that everyone buy ethanol based fuel. Obamacare will line the pockets of big insurance and big pharma!
Democrats don't want to end the Bush tax cuts because that would raise taxes on the middle class, genius, which was exactly their statement in 2010 when they extended the Bush tax cuts. So which is it, was the Bush tax cut a tax cut for the rich or was it an across the board tax cut that benefited everybody? You can't have it both ways!
And guess what, Obama hasn't changed a single corporate beneficiary of the war on terror. The contract with Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, et al, were all continued and renewed under Obama. Hell, he followed Bush's Iraq withdrawal strategy to the letter. It's called the Status of Forces Agreement, the Bush Administration negotiated it and Obama's bee...
Obamacare is left-wing corporatism, but corporatism didn't start with Obama, both sides engage in it. Obamacare is not universal health care, it's not socialism, it's soft-fascism by giving government subsidies to big insurance and big pharma. Have you heard any of the insurance or pharma companies complain about Obamacare? Of course you haven't. That would be like a corn farmer complaining about ethanol subsidies and mandating that everyone buy ethanol based fuel. Obamacare will line the pockets of big insurance and big pharma!
Democrats don't want to end the Bush tax cuts because that would raise taxes on the middle class, genius, which was exactly their statement in 2010 when they extended the Bush tax cuts. So which is it, was the Bush tax cut a tax cut for the rich or was it an across the board tax cut that benefited everybody? You can't have it both ways!
And guess what, Obama hasn't changed a single corporate beneficiary of the war on terror. The contract with Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, et al, were all continued and renewed under Obama. Hell, he followed Bush's Iraq withdrawal strategy to the letter. It's called the Status of Forces Agreement, the Bush Administration negotiated it and Obama's been following it the letter.......look it up!
Oh, and here's another fact, more American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush! That's your nobel peace prize President! What a joke!
And the Buffet Rule is a red herring. If you were educated, you'd know that the Buffet rule compares apples and oranges - Capital gains tax to income tax. This is classic class warfare that the American people are completely sick of from this incompetent President and the do nothing Democrats. Buffet pays 15% capital gains tax on any investment he makes, and guess what, so does his secretary. Everybody pays 15% capital gains on their long-term investments. This is a secondary tax on the principle he already paid 35% on previously (35% being his income tax rate).
FYI, Buffet owes $1 billion in back taxes, did you even realize that??? Buffet is in bed with big government, this is corporatism, he most likely won't pay those taxes, he'll just invest (donate) 1% of what he owes in taxes to both parties and the whole thing goes away.
The far left of the Democrat Party has been exposed as anti-American. The LWNJs would throw JFK out of the Party today, your Party has moved so far to the left that he would be considered a Tea Party terrorist by your standards. Liberals hold none of our founding principles!
And your comments were all opinion, not one was rooted in a single bit of historical fact. Nice try, but your partisanship has made you blind to reality!
I gave you all the historical information needed to blow your "opinion" out of the water, and what do you do? Ignore it completely. That's the definition of ignorance.
This much is true about your comments so far:
-You know nothing about Obamacare being corporatism
-You know nothing about Democrat Party corporatism
-You know nothing about the Bush tax cuts
-You know nothing about the Status of Forces Agreement
-You know nothing about the casualties of war under Obama
-You know nothing about the Buffett Rule (comparing apples to oranges)
-And you know nothing about how the world sees the Democrat Party, unless you're talking about the French.....LOL!
So in that sense, yes, your comments are consistent......consistently inaccurate.