It's about our community and our spirituality!

The Corporate Pursuit Of Happiness

The sixty three year old law limiting political spending by corporations was overturned by the United States Supreme Court today in a decision that called any ban a restraint of free speech.  The ruling will lift restrictions on what corporate America can spend to influence public opinion in elections.  According to the five seat majority, the First Amendment protects more than just the individual wishing to make a statement.  According to our Supreme Court, corporations need protection as well.

A corporation is far from being an individual.  They don’t vote.  Everybody who works in a corporation already have they privilege of free speech.  So why do they need free speech again as their corporate collective?  Unleashing the deep financial pockets of so many companies into the campaign mix is bound to manipulate people to vote against their own interest.  Case in point, healthcare reform, an institution designed to assure that we all receive the medical care we may need from time to time, is something that has become something evil and dastardly.

Corporations don’t like laws limiting their ability to pollute?  All they have to do is put their financial backing behind the candidate that’s more likely to sympathize with their interest.  Wal-Mart wants to move into a town where the city council is blocking their new store?  All it has to do is throw its money behind their opponents.  Exxon wants to drill for oil in a national park?  All it has to do is back the candidate that has about as much an interest in nature as a klan member has for the black community.  Bank of America wants to make Fort Knox a client.  Halliburton wants a contract to operate the TSA as a security investment.  T. Rowe Price wants to handle the privatization of the social security system.  I think you get the picture.

A corporation is not a person.  The only reason it exists is because of a piece of paper filed in some court somewhere.  Even if you don’t believe that President Barack Obama has a legal birth certificate from Hawaii or any other state, you can’t deny the fact that he exists.  The same thing cannot be said about a corporation.  Essentially, a corporation is little more than a work of legal fiction.  Why does this fictional entity deserve free speech?  Honestly, what does the corporation have to say that its board members, officers, directors, and whoever hasn’t already said?  The corporation has no thought process.  The only thinking a corporation does is the thinking of the people who run it.

It all comes just in time for this year’s midterm elections, corporations can now spend unlimited money on ads to support or defeat candidates.  Writing for the minority in dissent, justice John Paul Stevens said that the court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.   In a single day, the highest court in the land has altered campaign finance, and not for the better.

We hold these truths to be self evident.  That all men are created equal to the American corporation and that corporate are created by lawyers to have the same unalienable rights as people.  The corporation has no life or need for the pursuit of happiness.  Corporations don’t need happiness.  Only the people who run that corporation have such interests.  And with this gift laid at their feet by our conservatively controlled Supreme Court, they are very happy indeed.

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - Posted by | Life, Supreme Court, Thoughts


  1. Pretend for one minute that the entire economy has gone into the dumpster and design a new civilization using a fresh piece of paper. It will look more like the sustainable community being proposed for Haiti. When they get that one fixed, they should be able to provide a sustainable environment for the rest of the world’s poor and homeless.

    If you need some ideas you can join the North America Party . This is just for fun and it is on the internet, so we are not restricted by any of the financing, politics, rules, regulations, and all the other baggage that prevents the real world from making the changes that could eliminate war, suffering and poverty. It costs you nothing to join, see what we are doing and give us your thoughts. Love to hear from you.

    Comment by chris tidman | Friday, January 22, 2010 | Reply

  2. Just some food for thought…this isn’t merely for corporations as in big business, but also smaller businesses in more local and state elections, as well as unions, which generally have massive funding and organization, along with the appeal to some that they take the opposite side of the issue from the corporation.

    And one more thought to ponder… in the issue of fairness, wouldn’t limiting a corporations ability to lobby through political donations and/or advertising be another example of taxation without representation?

    Just some thoughts, I am still unsure where I stand on all this.

    Comment by Mike Lovell | Saturday, January 23, 2010 | Reply

    • Thanks for the feedback Mike Lovell,

      Corporations and unions! Neither one has the best interests of the public at heart. And corporations and unions getting taxed without representation? Like I said, a corporation doesn’t have a voice. The people who run corporations have voices and they already have their voices as individuals.


      Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Saturday, January 23, 2010 | Reply

  3. Well that begs to reinvite the most basoic question posed here…if the corporations or unions are without voice (which is logically impossible given lobbyists on all sides of a politicians ears), and therefore have no say so, should they not have their profits left alone to run the business, and merely keep the taxes heaped among the actual persons who work for and run the corporations?

    Comment by Mike Lovell | Saturday, January 23, 2010 | Reply

    • On the contrary. Corporations and unions are some of the biggest benefactors of our schools, roads, utilities, all kinds of government services, military defense and offense, and other infrastructure. Taxes on profits are the cost of doing business and the contribution these entities make to our social structure. If the people who run the corporations feel like their corporate interests are not being represented, they could dissolve their corporate status and simply operate as a partnership. Personally, I don’t think business should be getting the tax breaks that they are allowed. I know I don’t get to write off all of my expenses and only pay taxes on my profits. I pay taxes on every dollar that comes into my household. Maybe corporations should do the same.


      Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Saturday, January 23, 2010 | Reply

      • Well, I am not entirely sure as to the diference between “corporation” and “partnership” in the legal sense, but I do know that going into business yourself, whether as a sole proprietor or otherwise entitles you to greater tax breaks than if you are merely a working stiff.

        While I’m not a big fan of the tax code in general, I know that to a certian point it was created with the idea of businesses in mind. More or less to encourage people to go out there and realize the American Dream for themselves, so to speak. Of course back then it was a lot more simple to do this than it is today, and still make it financially.
        But the reason businesses are given tax breaks are ultimately because they still push production, employment and all that stuff far greater than any one “regular” person. But you also have to remember when it comes to tax breaks and all that..look at your pay stub. Everything that comes out of your paycheck for social security and medicare/medicaid…..your employer actually has to match that either quarterly or annually, since your contribution is only half the total requirement. So, while you pay taxes for only your own earnings, corporations pay taxes on their earnings as well as on yours.

        Now there are different levels of corporations to be sure, however broadly or narrolwly you wish to define them, but without corporations, I’d have to ask anyone in general, how are you paying your bills, if not for a corporation being there to provide you with employment opportunities.

        NOTE: this is to say nothing with regards to the election rules decision

        Comment by Mike Lovell | Sunday, January 24, 2010

      • One thing I do know about corporate tax rates, whatever the rate, it’s only applied to profits and not to income. I would be willing to trade the corporation. I would be willing to give up whatever rate they pay to match my contributions on whatever if they paid the same tax rate I do on my income. If this is going to be a matter of fairness and treating everybody as equal, then let’s give corporations the same tax structure as individuals. Let corporations pay the same income tax rate as individuals and we can simplify the tax code considerably. I’d like to see Exxon file a 1040-EZ.


        Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, January 24, 2010

  4. These corporate big wheels should have to decide which is more important to them; political expression or hiding their fortunes behind a corporation’s tax (and other)protections. Why are corporations being given MORE freedoms than me? Right now, an individual’s contributions to elections is limited in most cases. Why do corporations not have the same limits?
    Rush Limbaugh was on saying how great this all is. I think he just understands that now Obama will find it difficult to deregulate radio now and make the few large corporations that sponsor almost all the political shows sell all the stations that spout the conservative agenda 24/7. Those stations would eventually fall into the hands of individual owners who may or may not decide to keep that format. But for me, deregulation of the public airwaves is not about suppressing Rush and Glenn Beck, it is about fair distribution of a public entity-the airwaves. It’s just not fair that largely only corporations get to express political views in this format. I can pick up about 20 something stations where I live. Only two of them are independents.

    Comment by Carlton | Saturday, January 23, 2010 | Reply

  5. simplifying the tax code I think is a great idea….You have thoughts on the fair tax???

    Comment by Mike Lovell | Monday, January 25, 2010 | Reply

    • Like I said, if corporations want true equality with individuals, then let’s put everybody on the same playing field. I say everybody pays the same rate on income. Everybody can pay the same flat rate for every dollar above the poverty level. Now that would be extremely fair and equal. But good luck getting a fair and equal system passed. Too much adherence to what we got. Especially for corporations that seem to want the best of everything.


      Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Monday, January 25, 2010 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: