Democracy means Rule by the People

In this video of his March 4, 2010 lecture, David Cobb, a "pissed off American," presents important historical background regarding the relationship between the United States government and corporations. "Corporation" never appears in the U.S. Constitution, while "people" appears 34 times. It was traditionally a privilege to form a corporation, not a right, and corporations failing to act in the public interest could have their charters revoked. The United States is, technically speaking, a constitutional representative democracy. "Democracy" means "rule by the people." After offering this definition (that exactly matches the etymology), Cobb asked how many people in his audience believed that we currently have a functioning democracy in the United States, and the answer was overwhelmingly no. He argues that Citizens United eliminates our ability to have a functioning democracy. Unelected and unaccountable corporate CEO's are deciding how much toxic waste will be dumping into the environment and what choices we will have regarding transportation and health care. They are even deciding whether the U.S. goes to war. Thus he (along with Riki Ott, seen in the latter half of the video) are working with the Ultimate Civics and Campaign to Legalize Democracy, an effort to establish that corporations are not "persons." This group seeks systemic changes. He reminds us that many organizations that are now well-recognized as having effected important changes were disparaged and harassed when they were making those changes. It's time for the people to make dramatic change in how we run our society instead of begging "for a few less parts per billion." He argues that the abolitionists didn't tinker at the margins. They demanded substantial and immediate change. They exhibited courage. As Ott asks, "Do we care enough to make a difference?" Are we willing to take real steps to make sure that "human values count?" Here's the bottom line: Abolish corporate personhood. "Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to Constitutional rights." Further, we need to establish that "Money is not speech, so that we can have appropriate and proper campaign finance laws" that won't allow corporations, or any other party to control the electoral process. Local communities need to be able to regain control. It is a movement from the grassroots. Cobb argues that he doesn't expect any visionary leadership to come from NGOs, because they are too wrapped up in the corporate culture. To sum up, here are the goals:

  • 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 votes and participation count.
  • Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

Continue ReadingDemocracy means Rule by the People

Corporations as persons? Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered. Or do they?

Today, five members of the United States Supreme Court had their fun pretending that their hands were tied and that they were forced by objective reasoning to rule that corporations have the same right to participate in the political process as natural persons. I strenuously disagree. Today's ruling of Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Many commentators are burning up the Internet with their written thoughts. I had previously posted on this case, citing to comments by the lawyers representing the two sides. I'll make some more comments today, based upon the written opinion. I have not read the entire opinion, but I have read enough to understand the basic contours of the ruling. What is the basis for today's ruling in Citizen's United? The majority argues that media corporations already had the practical power to say whatever they wanted, so it wouldn't be fair to deny this same power to other types of corporations. Time to throw upon the doors! The majority argues that corporations would get around campaign laws anyway, so why keep trying? The majority naively argues that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Continue ReadingCorporations as persons? Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered. Or do they?

Kelo vs. New London revisited

Remember the case of Kelo vs. New London? Briefly, it was a case in which homeowners including Susette Kelo sued their municipality to stop it from taking their homes using the power of eminent domain. The city wanted to raze the homes and redevelop the area, making it shiny and new to complement the anticipated Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility. After all, one musn't allow the shabby dwellings of the peasantry to mar the image of success and corporate uniformity that one is trying to project:

So, the politicians picked a 24-acre lot and sold it Pfizer for $10, adding on special tax breaks. Also, state and local governments promised $26 million to clean up contamination on the lot and a nearby junkyard. But Pfizer executive David Burnett thought New London needed to do some more cleaning. "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," the Hartford Courant quoted Burnett in 2001. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements." The old Victorian houses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood next door did not match Pfizer's vision - a high-rise hotel or luxury condominiums would be more fitting.

Continue ReadingKelo vs. New London revisited

Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007

Businesses are increasingly inserting arbitration provisions into contracts to prohibit the employees and consumers from resolving important disputes in courts of law. Such arbitration provisions compel the employees and consumers to present his or her case to an "private arbitrator," who need not even be an attorney. There is no jury trial. There is no automatic right to engage in pre-trial discovery. There is no public access. There need not even be an in-person hearing (unless you pay extra). The arbitrator often has the right to decide the entire case by merely looking at paperwork and you might not even have a right to be there when it happens. If the arbitrator fails to apply the law correctly or if the arbitrator refuses to consider important evidence, too bad. There is no appeal. There is no accountability. Your claim against a big company will simply disappear. And here's another huge concern: the big corporations are repeat customers to the big arbitration companies, while you will be a one-time player. Under these circumstances, who is the arbitrator likely to favor? [more . . .]

Continue ReadingArbitration Fairness Act of 2007

Legal consequences of failing to read fine print

For the past couple years, I have had the privilege of working as a consumer attorney.  I’ve occasionally written about some of the topics I’ve encountered as a consumer lawyer.  In this post, I’ll address another issue that I commonly encounter in my practice: illegible forms full of fine print that deprive consumers of fundamental rights.

What provoked this topic is a lawsuit I am currently handling.  My client sued a payday lender based on a payday loan that she alleges the defendant repeatedly processed and renewed in violation of the payday lending laws of Missouri.  This is a big deal to my client and to all of the numerous potential class members of this class action.  Why is it important?  For starters, this particular payday lender (and many others) charged 469% interest.  This is not a typo.  I have often asked friends and acquaintances whether they’ve heard of payday loans.  They usually say they have heard of those sorts of businesses.  I then ask them how much interest they think payday lenders charge.  Most people say something like this:

“Oh, I hear that it is an exorbitant rate of interest, perhaps 25%.” 

They are shocked to hear that it is legal to charge consumers 400 or 500% interest on a small consumer loans.  They are shocked to hear that some of these companies make it part of their business plan to repeatedly violate Missouri lending laws.  They are also shocked at one other thing, the topic of this post.  …

Share

Continue ReadingLegal consequences of failing to read fine print