One Step Too Far

I have continued to read Joel Bakan's The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Power and Profit. It has confirmed for me that one of the greatest evils in current society was the invention of the "corporation." Just left to its own devices, corporations impede the notions of freedom and democracy, but under the protection of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the US of A, the monster has mutated into a radioactive Frankenstein.

Recently, a group has formed -- Move to Amend -- to try to stuff the genie back into the bottle.

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

• Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
• Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
• Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
  

The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule. We Move to Amend.

I have debated as to whether or not I will sign their petition. Right now, I'm leaning toward NOT, simply because I think Point #3 is one step too far.

For me, the first bullet point gets to the heart of the matter. If we can establish the principle in the US Constitution that a corporation is NOT a person and does not enjoy human rights, we can go a long way toward shifting the power dynamics in this nation and even the world. Hand in hand with this aspect is incorporating the idea that money and speech are not the same thing!

The second bullet point is a good one and I certainly don't disagree with it, but I think it is a bit beyond the scope of what this group needs to accomplish. Trying to redefine the corporation itself will represent the toughest fight and so I think it would be better to concentrate solely on that, rather than adding more complexity to the effort.

My problem with the last bullet point centers on the word, illegitimate. That is a very subjective word! While liberals, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, and Leftists could find common ground with point #1 (and maybe point #2), point #3 is fraught with danger. All of these various groups necessarily will disagree on what constitutes the definition of "illegitimate."

Therefore, it seems to me that this group has created a plank of divisiveness that could easily tear apart the coalition from the inside. Instead of spending their energy, time and money combating the misinformation of the corporate class, I fear they are setting the table to spend inordinate amounts of time, energy and money sniping at each other.

I will monitor this group to see how they are getting along, but I don't hold out much hope that they will prove successful. In my humble opinion, they unwittingly have set a time bomb in their own midst and I don't think I want to be too close when it blows up.