More on the Activist Supreme Court

I can't get off of this Supreme Court ruling. It just keeps rolling around in my little brain.

I am wondering if those voters that continue to vote right wing realize the damage that their continued support of this developing plutarchy is doing.

• The right wing media machine continues to beat a very narrow set of drums.
• The right wing christian elite continue to sell their souls to the devil of this right wing media machine by engaging in the quid pro quo that delivers votors to the right wing if the right wing will support a very narrow set of agenda items - specifically abortion rights and gay rights issues.
• The real power of the right wing machine accepts these votes to keep them in power, and gives enough lip service to the narrow issues to keep the voters coming back.
• Then, while in power, they completely dismantle the ability of the people to govern, and continue their march toward replacing our democratically elected Republic with a plutarchy that has the facade of democracy and republic.

This ruling by this radically activist Supreme Court - appointed by the radical right - is the cornerstone that will allow the right wing to make tremendous progress in this regard. The two key principles that this ruling declares are these:

• That a corporation is the same as an individual - that a corporation is protected by the Bill of Rights in the same and equal fashion that a real person is protected by the Bill of Rights. Think about this.
• That money is equal to speech.

This tears the fabric of our Republic to pieces. No longer are we a nation "By the People, For the People, and Of The People". With the advent of modern media, people have become sheep to the media. The media is where they get all their information. The media is controlled by the corporate right wing. The corporate right wing now has complete and unfettered ability to spend whatever it takes to get their flocks of sheep to vote the way they want them to vote. They will feed the flocks ONLY the information that they want them to hear, and they will slant and bias all information and opinions to conform to the shape that they want their new nation to take. There are no limits.

People, the government is US!!! Stop buying into this right-wing propoganda that has become urban legand over the past decades. The urban legand tells us that government is bad. Hello - government is US - WE THE PEOPLE! It is our only way to control the rapidly growing plutarchy!

Money is not speech. Period. Money is money, and it is used to buy things, to control things, to corrupt things. It is not speech. The Supreme Court should be looking for ways to protect speech FROM MONEY. That is, if we had a Supreme Court that was not made up of shills for the extreme right wing plutarchy.

A corporation is NOT A PERSON. The Bill of Rights applies to people, not to corporations. Corporations should be tightly controlled and regulated entities, not rulers of our country, and certainly not protected by our sacred Bill of Rights.

This should be THE PRIMARY ISSUE on the mind of every voter between now and when Congress takes action to reverse this abomination of a ruling.

Campaign Finance Reform - A Simple Solution

The simplest solutions are often the ones that get overlooked. In the case of campaign finance reform, there is a very simple solution that could alter the face of politics in America, dramatically reducing the level of corruption and nearly eliminating the ability of big money organizations (corporations or unions or anyone else) to own the political agenda.

Which is exactly why COMA (Corporate Oligarchy Money in America) will do all that they can to assure that such a simple solution is never implemented. They will paint it with all of the normal paintbrushes of emotional fear that they have used for years. They will call it socialism, and if that doesn’t work, they will call it communism. They will hammer on these themes until enough people fall back into their place with the rest of the sheep, and let their COMA masters have their way yet again.
First, a starting place:

• We must reaffirm the notion that there is such a thing as the “Public Commons”. This was an important notion when our country was founded – the idea that each person had a right to stand in public and say whatever they wanted to say. If there were no Public Commons, then there could be no free speech, right? If all space were private, then landowners would control speech completely – they would decide what got said on their property. Unless you were a landowner – part of the aristocracy – you would not be able to speak freely. The right to speak freely was completely dependent on the existence of public space.
• At the time of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, electronic media obviously did not exist. The Public Square was the place where we expressed our freedom of speech, as well as the written word.
• As the electronic airwaves came into existence, there seems to have been an understanding that these airwaves were public property. In order to use these electronic waves, a person or organization must “lease” a particular space in the public square of the airwaves. They are granted the privilege to use that bandwidth for a particular period of time.
  So let’s stop there. It’s important. Can you imagine if our founding fathers had decided to lease the public commons, and allow the leaseholder to control and profit from speech in their little corner of the public square? It would be absurd. It would completely destroy the notion of free speech, quieting the voice of the individual completely, giving voice ONLY to those who were granted the privilege of controlling a portion of the commons.

So let’s stop there. It’s important. Can you imagine if our founding fathers had decided to lease the public commons, and allow the leaseholder to control and profit from speech in their little corner of the public square? It would be absurd. It would completely destroy the notion of free speech, quieting the voice of the individual completely, giving voice ONLY to those who were granted the privilege of controlling a portion of the commons.This sounds a lot like the feudal systems in Europe that our forefathers were trying hard to avoid, doesn’t it? There would be a small aristocracy who would be in complete control of speech, and through that control of all speech and communication, would further consolidate their hold on power, influence, and money.


I think that we understood this to some degree as print media became more influential, and electronic media began to explode. We put in place laws and limits on how much of this huge power could rest in any single hands. Radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, etc. needed to be owned locally rather than as part of big national corporate voices. We rightfully feared the ability of big barons of money and power to completely control the public conversations, and put strong limits to try and curb this.
Over the past 3 decades, these protections have been rapidly eroded. We have a very few mega-corporations who own essentially all of the media in our country. Is it any surprise that the explosion of corruption and corporate ownership of our represented officials has coincided with this handoff of the Public Commons to this small handful of the super-rich and super-powerful?
The first step in fixing this uber-corruption is to remove control of the election process from the hands of COMA, and put it back in the hands of the American People. This is the simple step:

• If I broadcast over public airwaves, I am granted this privilege by The People, as represented by the government. One of my responsibilities in order to maintain this privilege is that I must grant voice to people who seek to represent The People.
• It should be illegal for me to charge any fee when I fulfill this responsibility. I MUST provide free voice to people seeking election in my coverage area. There will surely be some definitions regarding where lines might be drawn, but the bottom line is that a big portion of my airtime is held by the public in order to express their right to free speech.
• It is illegal to buy time on the airwaves, and it is illegal to charge for that time.
• Period

Notice what this does? It takes money out of the equation completely. The big media giants will whine and cry about all the revenue we are keeping them from taking in. Tell me why this is the problem of The People? I run a small business, and there is no “Bill of Rights” that guarantees me revenue or profit as a business person. If Fox and NBC don’t like it, they can fold their tents and go home – I am absolutely positive that there are many other organizations who would LOVE to have the privilege to use their bandwidth, and will find a wonderful way to make excellent profit within these rules.
For us – The People – we take money completely out of the election process. Well, we don’t eliminate it, but we reduce it dramatically. Sure, this means the media companies take a huge hit – maybe we can find a better way to deploy those resources…
Pretty simple, right? I wonder why we never hear about it? Could it be that the way we hear about ideas is through Big Media, and this would be a crushing blow to Big Media?