The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen

[Guest guest]

S

Fri, 1 Jul 2005 23:00:33 -0700

The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen vs: " We the People "

 

 

And do not forget the super rich oligarchs who are behind and the main owners of

those large corporations.

 

 

 

 

How Corporations Became Living Entities with Full Rights and

Privileges in the United States

 

 

 

The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen

 

By William Rivers Pitt

 

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

 

Thursday 30 June 2005

 

Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of

monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find

that

the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away,

and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the

hands of

these corporations.

-- Andrew Jackson, farewell address, 04 March 1837

 

The document reads, " All men are created equal. " When those words were

first

put to paper, of course, the literal meaning of the phrase did not match

what was written. A more accurate sentence would have read, " All white

land-owning men are created equal, " but despite the inherent racism and

misogyny buried in the original meaning, the words had magic and power

enough to lay the groundwork for 200 years of progress.

 

The words as written became the basis for reform after reform, for the

strengthening of the rights of minorities, women, and basically anyone who

would be made subservient to anyone else. The struggle took a long

time, and

continues today with much remaining to do before that equality is truly

achieved, but the strength of those words as written has been proven time

and again to be more than a match for anyone who would stand on the

neck of

a fellow citizen.

 

That's what the billboard reads, anyway. That's the propaganda, the myth,

the way we rock ourselves to sleep at night. The truth is significantly

different, however, and is at the root of just about everything that has

gone wrong with this great democratic experiment.

 

We are not all created equal, in fact. This inequality is not based on

race,

or sex, or religion, but upon the slow development of a body of laws that

have created and empowered a breed of super-citizens which rule over every

aspect of our lives, almost completely beyond the reach of justice. These

super-citizens exist today under the familiar name " corporation. "

 

But wait, a corporation is basically a company, right? A corporation is a

non-living entity, a group of people endeavoring to make money in a

business

enterprise or non-profit organization, right? Wrong. A corporation is

indeed

a non-living entity, a group of people looking to make money. But

thanks to

a Supreme Court decision, corporations are also actual living entities in

every legal sense of the word, with all rights and privileges of

citizenship

- and several more besides - intact.

 

A Short History of Corporations

 

The word " corporation " comes from the Latin " corpus, " or " body. " The

Oxford

English Dictionary defines " corporation " as " a group of people

authorized to

act as an individual. " The history of corporations in America is

intertwined

with the story of the revolution that birthed this nation. British

corporations in colonial America were rebelled against vigorously as

representatives of the Crown, which they were.

 

Many of the principal actors in the American revolution, among them George

Washington, wanted to throw off British rule because they felt their

ability

to conduct commerce freely was being disrupted. When 60 Boston residents

hurled the tea into Boston Harbor in 1773, it was an attack specifically

upon the economic power and supremacy of a corporation called the British

East India Tea Company, which had been undercutting the profits of

colonial

merchants thanks to the passage of the Tea Acts.

 

After the revolution, and for a hundred years, the American people bore a

deep distrust of the corporation, and corporations were regulated

severely.

Corporate charters were created by individual states, and those states had

the power to revoke that charter if the corporation was deemed to be

acting

against the public good or had deviated from its charter. Corporations

were

not allowed to own other corporations, nor were they allowed to

participate

in the political process.

 

Very slowly over that 100 years, however, the power of the corporation

began

to grow. In the 1818 Supreme Court case " Dartmouth College v. Woodward, "

Daniel Webster, advocating for Dartmouth, argued passionately for the

power

of corporations in regards to property rights. The Court sided with

Webster

and corporate rights, stating: " The opinion of the Court, after mature

deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation

of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the

United

States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason,

and by

the former decisions of this Court. "

 

A good deal of hell was raised after this decision, with many citizens and

state legislatures standing upon the right of a state to repeal or amend a

corporate charter. Seven years later, however, another Supreme Court case

buttressed the power of the corporation with their decision in

" Society for

the Preservation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet. " The

Society was seeking to protect its colonial-era property grants in

Vermont,

while Vermont was seeking to revoke those grants. The Court decided in

favor

of the Society, and explicitly extended the same protections to

corporation-owned property as are enjoyed by property-owning natural

persons.

 

Corporations in America began to become truly powerful with the rise

of the

railroads. Railroads were the lifeblood of the growing nation,

carrying both

agriculture and industry from one side of the country to the other.

This was

a highly profitable enterprise, and railroad corporations began to exert

heavy influence on both state and federal leaders. Corporate attorneys

boldly asserted the precedents set in the Dartmouth and Society Supreme

Court decisions, demanding that corporations deserved to have at least

some

of the rights of natural persons. Meanwhile, attorneys loyal to the

railroads began to rise through the ranks of the Judiciary, finally

finding

seats on the highest bench.

 

This process came to a final head in 1886, when the Supreme Court

heard the

case " Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. " Arguments over the

rights of corporations as persons had been raging for decades, and Chief

Justice Waite pounded home the nail: " The court does not wish to hear

argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment

to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person

within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these

corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does. "

 

" We are all of the opinion that it does. "

 

The pertinent section of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, " All persons born

or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they

reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process

of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection

of the laws. "

 

Before the Santa Clara decision, this amendment applied only to living,

breathing people. After Santa Clara, it applied also to massively wealthy

corporations, groups of people authorized to act as individuals, but

beyond

the kinds of legal liabilities natural persons are subject to. The Santa

Clara decision, and subsequent decisions affirming it, created the

formidable distinction between the citizen and the super-citizen.

 

Both have purchasing power, both can give money to whomever or

whatever they

please, but the difference lies in the extent to which this can be done. A

natural person can buy a house and give money to a politician. A wealthy

corporation, on the other hand, can buy a thousand houses and give

money to

a thousand politicians. In other words, a corporation which enjoys the

same

rights as a natural person has a thousand times the power and

influence of a

natural person over the economics and politics of the country. That is a

super-citizen.

 

Because these super-citizens can exert so much power, their rights

have been

dramatically extended over the years. In the 1950s, for example,

corporations paid some 40% of the taxes in this country. They flexed their

muscles and exerted their influence, and by 1980 were paying only 26%

of the

taxes in this country. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed that

payment to 8%.

 

The economic boon enjoyed by these super-citizens is augmented by the fact

that regular citizens' tax dollars are used by the government to purchase

goods and services from corporations involved in the production of

weapons,

petroleum, timber and agricultural products. Corporate perks like jets,

elaborate headquarters, public relations firms, and executive retreats are

all tax write-offs; the regular citizen, by contrast, pays for their perks

with after-tax dollars. When a corporation screws up and destroys an

ecosystem with a toxic spill, corporate liability shields protect them

from

financial and legal punishment, and the cost of the clean-up is borne

by the

tax dollars of the regular citizen.

 

Today, corporations control almost every aspect of what we see, hear, eat,

wear and live. Every television news media organization is owned by a

small

handful of corporations, which use these news outlets to filter out

information that might be damaging to the parent company. Agriculture in

America is controlled by a small group of corporations. One cannot drive a

car, rent a van, buy a house or deliver goods in a business transaction

without purchasing insurance from a corporation. Getting sick in

America has

become a ruinously expensive experience because corporations now control

even the smallest functions of the medical profession, and have turned the

practice of health care into a for-profit industry.

 

The influence these super-citizens hold over local, state and national

politics is the reason why so many privileges have been afforded to them.

This influence has existed to one degree or another for decades. Yet

it was

another Supreme Court decision, handed down in 1976, that allowed these

super-citizens to establish a strangle-hold on our politics and government

institutions.

 

The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen

 

In 1976, the case " Buckley v. Valeo " came before the Supreme Court.

Senator

James Buckley, former Senator and Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy,

and several others had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality

of the

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) and the Presidential Election

Campaign Fund Act. Among the defendants were Francis Valeo, Secretary

of the

Senate and ex officio member of the newly-created Federal Election

Commission, as well as the Commission itself.

 

The final Supreme Court decision split a number of legal hairs. The

decision

upheld the constitutionality of limiting political contributions to

candidates, and the disclosure and record-keeping requirements established

by FECA. The aspects of FECA deemed unconstitutional, however, became the

basis for the supremacy of the super-citizen. In short, the Court decided

that limiting the amount of money a candidate could spend was a

violation of

the First Amendment. In other words, the spending of campaign money was

equated with the right of free speech.

 

On the surface, the decision makes sense. Because so much of modern

political campaigning involves television and radio advertisements, direct

mailing of campaign literature, extensive travel and lodging and staff

payrolls, and because all these things cost money, a limitation on

campaign

spending necessarily restricts the ability of a candidate to practice free

speech in the political realm.

 

The danger, of course, was that corporations would take advantage of

the new

spending freedoms enjoyed by politicians and flood them with

influence-creating cash. The Court attempted to address this concern by

upholding the limits on contribution amounts, stating that these

limitations

were the " primary weapons against the reality or appearance of improper

influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign

contributions. "

 

The Court's attempt to address this concern failed, in no small part

because

of the existence of so-called " soft money. " Soft money was supposed to be

cash given to political parties for " party-building activities " rather

than

for the direct support of candidates and campaigns. Soft money

contributions

were not subjected to limitations, allowing super-citizens to flood

outrageous amounts of money into the process. Because the soft-money rules

were so vague, and because soft money contributions were so huge, the

money

was invariably directed towards the support of individual candidates. The

politicians became corporate entities, commodities bought and sold by the

super-citizens.

 

The passage in 2002 of the Campaign Reform Act did little to cut into the

massive influence in politics enjoyed by the super-citizens. The Campaign

Reform Act made most soft money contributions illegal but created a

loophole

large enough to sail a British tea ship through, with the enshrinement of

527 groups as political entities. 527s are tax-exempt organizations

created

to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of political

candidates.

 

The soft money previously given to political parties goes now to these

groups, and these groups enjoy umbilical connections to the parties and

candidates they work in favor of. In other words, nothing really changed,

and the influence of the super-citizens was undiminished. The Campaign

Reform Act also raised the hard money contribution limit from $1,000 to

$2,000, thus doubling the ability of super-citizens to exert direct

financial influence upon candidates and office-holders.

 

Today, virtually every politician holding national office is financially

beholden to a corporation. Beyond the favorable tax status for

corporations

established by these owned politicians, the effects of this ownership are

felt by average citizens every day.

 

Foreign policy is all too often decided by corporate considerations, and

these decisions often lead to war. The air we breathe, the food we eat and

the water we drink is contaminated by pollutants that corporations are

legally allowed to spew, thanks to the legislative protections created by

corporate-owned politicians. Draconian sentencing rules created by

legislators that incarcerate millions of Americans - think " The War on

Drugs " specifically - have as much to do with the influence of the

corporate-controlled prison industry as with anything else.

 

This list goes on and on. Super-citizens define our reality by controlling

the information we receive via television, newspaper and radio.

Super-citizens make sure that information casts them in a favorable light.

Super-citizens pound us with advertising and thus maintain the fiction

that

spending money on products defines the nature of a person.

 

The best and brightest are drafted out of law school to work for corporate

defense firms for six-figure salaries, thus ensuring that super-citizens

enjoy a level of legal defense not available to anyone else. Many of these

corporate attorneys graduate to the bench, where they extend the influence

of super-citizens across all levels of the judicial branch.

 

More than anything else, however, super-citizens control the ways and

means

of government at every level. They bought it, they own it, and they make

sure it does their bidding. The needs, requirements and best interests of

the average citizen do not enter into the equation.

 

Created Equal

 

Arguments can be made that corporations are good for the economy and the

country. They can get things done with a speed and efficiency not often

found in the bureaucracies of government. When the country had to get

itself

ready to fight World War II, for one example, it was the industrial and

manufacturing corporations that produced the means to achieve victory

beyond

anyone's expectations.

 

In the final analysis, however, the influence held by these entities is

antithetical to the fundamental ideals of the nation. We are not all

created

equal, and within that inequality lies the potential for enormous evil.

Consider the case of I.G. Farben, the industrial giant that was the

financial core of the Nazi regime. Farben produced the gas used in the

concentration camps, and made lucrative use of slave labor in the camps.

Before the war, Farben worked hand-in-hand with a number of powerful

American corporations, the most prominent of which was Standard Oil.

 

In the aftermath of World War II, the crimes committed by Farben were

considered so enormous that many wanted the corporation to be utterly

destroyed. Instead, Farben was split into several smaller entities,

several

of which still exist. Millions of Americans purchase aspirin from Bayer, a

company that was once part of Farben. Commercials for BASF tell us that

company makes the products we buy better, but do not tell us that BASF was

once part of Farben. It speaks to the power enjoyed by corporations that

Farben, the company that forced concentration camp laborers to manufacture

the Zyklon-B used to exterminate them, and which was the backbone of Nazi

financial power, was not destroyed out of hand once the war was over.

Farben

is still with us. Its charter has merely been changed.

 

Are all corporations on the moral level of I.G. Farben? Certainly not.

Many

corporations work for the public good, and many that work for their own

enrichment do not necessarily undermine the country and its

principles. But

some do, and exist beyond punishment or account.

 

The potential for evil is certainly there when super-citizens exist above

the law. When the New York Times reviewed the book The Crime and

Punishment

of I.G. Farben, it observed that the story of Farben " Forces one to

consider

the possibility that when corporate evil reaches a certain status, it

simply

cannot be defeated. "

 

In the end, the existence of incredibly powerful entities that enjoy the

status of citizens demote the vast majority of average citizens to

second-class status. If the ideals we hold sacred have any truth to

them, if

the myths we sleep by have any basis in reality, such a division is

intolerable and must be changed. " All men are created equal " once excluded

vast swaths of Americans from their basic rights. Battles were fought to

change that. Today, a battle to realign the balance of power between the

citizen and the super-citizen must also be fought. It must be won.

 

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling

author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know

and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.

[Guest guest]

So true.

At every level of society the grip of these dark princes is felt.

I believe it is time to begin lobbying for regulation of corporations, and

for an attack on real monopolies, using existing law and court precedent, to

dismantle these evil hijackers of the American Dream. At bare minimum

Congress could assist the average working American by forcing these

megaliths to provide health insurance and decent wages to their workers.

We should also lobby to eliminate state " right to work " laws, which help

corporate giants do as they please with workers, eliminating workers rights.

Michael

 

On Behalf Of

califpacific

Saturday, July 02, 2005 3:10 AM

 

The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen

 

S

Fri, 1 Jul 2005 23:00:33 -0700

The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen vs: " We the People "

 

 

And do not forget the super rich oligarchs who are behind and the main

owners of those large corporations.