Occupy Wall Street held an (un-)holy matrimony of a real human being to a non-human corporate "person" to celebrate the 3rd anniversary of Citizen's United, granting corporations equal rights as living things.
So, if you're a fan of crony capitalism, if you trust Exxon, Goldman Sachs, KBR, Monsanto, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their crony kin to look after you, Mitt Romney and the Republicans is your kind of band.
If Jefferson is going to be conscripted posthumously to any side in the debate over Citizens United, the Sage of Monticello belongs with the vast majority of Americans who reject the Court's decision to treat CEOs spending corporate money on political campaigns as a form of citizen speech.
It was one thing for the Supreme Court to declare that private, for-profit corporations have a Constitutional right to speak. But recently, a Federal District Judge issued a ruling based on the premise that for-profit corporations also have the ability to exercise religious beliefs.
A portrait of America under Tea Party rule runs the risk of reading like dystopian science fiction. So be it. We should take the risk because a future Tea Party America would likely be such a dystopia, a place even tea partiers might fear to tread.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted yesterday to place a measure on this November's ballot that will give voters the chance to demand a federal constitutional amendment that would authorize limits on political campaign contributions.
Passing disclosure laws in Congress is hard and passing a Constitutional amendment is harder. But if we don't act, corporations and the wealthy will be happy to create the best government their money can buy.
Will corporations get all the rights that personhood implies? It's hard to say; only one thing is certain, they won't have any trouble raising the money for campaigns to approve the corporate equality agenda, whatever it turns out to be.
Defenders of Citizens United and the corporate rights doctrine that underlies it must be getting nervous. Why else would George Will resort to arguing that the amendment I have introduced is "comparable" to condoning infanticide?