Fix the Problem, NOT the Symptom....

Everyone probably knows by now about the wonderful Supreme Court decision that enshrines in the law two utterly anti-human concepts: corporations are people and money is speech.

While it is true that corporations act like morons in their blind, lustful and often criminal (or criminally negligent) pursuit of profit at the expense of everyone and everything that might otherwise be worth preservation, and enough money can buy anyone a lot of speech, the bottom line here is that it just ain't so.

The trouble is that the USSC has a long history of turning what should be obvious, basic, human concepts into the most convoluted, inverted exercises in twisted logic imaginable.  Rights that are embodied in the first ten amendments to the Constitution have been systematically and methodically limited because, as we progress through history, the Court seems to forget that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the government, not outline how they could be expanded beyond all reason.

Remember, the authors of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) had just been through a hellish war to fight off the yoke of the British Crown and the world's most infamous monopoly, the British East India Tea Company, followed by years of failure in the form of the Articles of Confederacy.

But today, in spite of this knowledge and history, I get this message from Common Cause, which is supposed to be on our side against the corporations and the overreaches of the government:

"Are you going to allow five Supreme Court justices to have the last word on our democracy?

I didn't think so.

The horrendous ruling by the Roberts Court to allow unlimited political spending by corporations and unions requires a game-changing response. On Friday, I shared the cornerstone of Common Cause's plan with Keith Olbermann and his viewers: Pass the Fair Elections Now Act."

Yeah, that'll teach those nasty Justices - pass another law they can overturn at the first opportunity!


Does anyone else see what's wrong with this approach?  How does that "change the game" at all?



The solution is to fix the Constitution so that decisions about what the rights of fictional entities are and whether a medium of exchange is equivalent to the ability of a person to say something are out of the Court's hands.


In other words, we need a Constitutional amendment, or two, to establish, once and for all, that corporations are not persons under the law and only living, breathing human beings have any legal rights as persons, and that media of exchange are commercial entities with no equivalent or legal relationship to the making of sound by a human being, or any expression of same (e.g., press, electronic broadcast, internet, etc).


Fix the problem, not the symptoms, and really fix them.  Now.


That would change the game, at least for a few generations of living beings....