Secure Computing: Top 10 Technologies For Tyranny
Cyber Criminals Trick Consumers To Wire Money To Overseas Accounts As "Money Mules"

The U.S. Supreme Court Suggests Some Constitutional Changes

If you read this blog regularly, then you know that I regularly write about and advocate for consumers'  rights against corporate greed and abuses involving identity theft, corporate responsibility, and corporate data breaches. Today's topic definitely includes corporate responsibility and consumers' (voters') rights.

Last week's SCOTUS decision on campaign finance suggests some changes to the U.S. Constitution are necessary:

"We the Corporations of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the corporate Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution also requires an update:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the Corporations of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Corporation shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years in business, and has maintained a headquarters for at  least the seven latest consecutive Years in the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution also requires an update:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote... No Corporation shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and has maintained a headquarters for at least the nine latest consecutive Years in the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

And, Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution also requires an update:

"No Corporation except a U.S.-based Corporation, or a corporation that has transferred its headquarter location into the U.S. for at least seven years, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Corporation be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and has maintained a headquarters fourteen consecutive Years within the United States."

A couple friends on Facebook summed up very well this SCOTUS decision:

"Corporations are not people, and money is not speech. And hey, where did all those people complaining about activist judges go?"

If this SCOTUS decision annoys you (and I sincerely hope that it does), take action:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bill Garner

Well I can't tell if this is going to be good for us working Americans or not? But, what we have had is big union money and organizations like ACORN ... maybe this will provide a little more balance? I hope I hope:)

George

Bill:

I agree with you. I want to get all of the big money from unions and corporations out of campaign finance. Both are damaging to a healthy democracy, but corporations -- in size and in number -- have the resources to far outspend unions. The U.S. Constitution is of, by, and for the people.

I'd like to see campaigns limited in the money they use, since elected officials (at federal, state, and local levels) must manage to a tight budget anyway. I don't want to give money to any campaign if all I am going to get is a barrage of negative television ads and constant robo-calls.

I fear that more big money in campaign finance will only serve to "tilt the playing field" even further about how corporations buy, sell, and archive consumers' sensitive personal data.

George
Editor
ivebeenmugged.typepad.com

Catherine Melina

Public funding of election campaigns is the only way to stop the large corporations and monied interests from buying the airtime needed to swamp all discussion in a tidal wave of miss-information and advertising.

We need to level the playing field... Let every viable, serious candidate have equal funding and equal access to the public airwaves. Let us hear what they all have to say. Once the funds are restricted the messages will have to be clear, positions will have to be stated, and the fluff and dross will be swept away.

Corporations aren't "persons," people are persons and people should decide who represents them. Representatives who have to look over their shoulders for fear of offending a corporation that can drown them by pouring money into a compliant rival's campaign cannot serve the people of this country. They can only serve their consciences or their corporate masters... and your conscience does you no good if you can't win the election! Get the corporations out of our electoral process... their lobbyists already have a voice in every decision "our" government makes. Now they'll be able to cut out the middleman and choose the Representatives themselves!

The comments to this entry are closed.