- checking login information
The Politics Cause
293,233 people care about Politics
Loading...PR Firm To Run for Congress: ‘Celebrating’ Supreme Court Affirmation of Corporate Personhood
A Washington-based PR firm is running for Congress. Not supporting a candidate, but running as a candidate, to demonstrate the outrageous nature of last week’s Supreme Court decision that treats political campaign spending by corporations as free speech.
In a satirical move by polished pros, PR firm Murray Hill has launched its election campaign with all the tools of a “regular’ campaign, including a website and an “inspiring” election ad:
The campaign is tongue in cheek, but the fake fervor and polished statements are gems: “The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” The “candidate” confirms that “Murray Hill Inc. plans on filing to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District. Campaign Manager William Klein “plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote.”
In deciding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the justices ruled 5-4 that corporations cannot be be prevented from funding political campaigns and specific candidates. Defended on the grounds of free speech, the decision gives carte blanche (as if it were needed), to corporations to buy and sell candidates and influence the outcome of elections. The ruling overruled two precedents that had placed restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose candidates. Commentators have noted that the ruling reaffirms the concept of corporate personhood, whereby a corporation is accorded the same rights as an individual.
If we didn’t laugh along with Murray Hill, Inc’s candidacy, we’d cry. One of the problems with treating corporations as individuals is that, freed from the individual’s innate sense of right and wrong, a corporation, by dint of being conscience-free, can behave without ethical grounding. For a more serious expose of this tragedy, read Joel Bakan’s The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. The trailer for the 2003 documentary made from the book can be seen below. How stunning and depressing, that it is even more timely today.
Which corporation do you think should run for office? Any great slogans come to mind?
Read more
Support the Fair Elections Now Act Care2 blog post by Bob Kerrey
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund has an excellent guide to corporate charters and how to get them revoked.
Read more: campaign finance, corporation, democracy, politics, Supreme Court
Photo: Jacalyn Engler via Flickr; CC license
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
I agree with Pam and BMutiny absolutely.
From an article on cbc.ca: "A lot of times when you go climb these mountains you sign what's called a…
Hideous cruelty is involved in shooting. It should only ever be a last resort if an animal becomes dangerous…
meet our writers
99 comments
+ add your ownMany people including Care 2 are confusing the difference between special interest groups and big corporations. Special interest groups actually do represent groups of individuals (Care2 is a special interest group) while big corporations only represent the interests of corporations. The Supreme court was right in giving special interest groups that represent individuals a voice, but went too far by including corporations in their decision. Denying all special interests a voice would be also be denying groups of people with the same causes a voice in Washington. Giving big corporations that same right is what is wrong with the ruling. We all belong to special interest groups and believe that those groups deserve a voice in Washington on our behalf.
I love that this company is doing this! Eat your terrible decision, Supremes!
Lionel, don't forget that the Nazis had considerable help form Henry Ford, Prentice Bush and others in the US. It wasn't until Harry Truman kicked butt on war profiteering that these guys stopped supporting Adolf (1943). Lots of blood on lots of American hands during war - and it's American blood, not the "enemy's".
How about the WTO or IMF? They already own us and could then do a Soylent Green with those of us who would blow them up.
Rita Walpole said a mouthful. I am going to reiterate just in case anyone missed her post:
"Just for starters, never again vote on anything but a paper ballot (early or absentee voting) and make and keep a copy of your ballot. Take time to help in a true vote recount, especially in "close" elections. Here's reality: See the documentary the League of Women Voters aired called "The Uncounted", get informed on the ease (software, virus infusion via satellite, etc.) that vote and count fraud can be executed, then petition Congress to enact a national Verifiable Vote and Count Act. And do it in a hurry! By the 2010 elections, nearly three quarters of all electronic vote and count machines in the country will be Diebold or Diebold related.
Leave naivete behind, question and track all candidates, open yours mouths, spread the word far and wide to UNDO THE COUP!"
good story
Well said, Susan Suni Ibarra! This is no joking matter. In the thirties the world watched as the arrogant Nazis took over Germany with the collaboration of most of the financiers, politicians, military and legal fraternity, seeking eventual world domination. Today we are watching the U.S.A. sliding slowly down a similar dangerous path. Daily I give thanks for the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia as providing counters to the U.S.A.’s overweening Fascist ambitions. The E.U., with Blair, Brown, Berlusconi and others already bought by Bush, is sadly weakened, of little account
Corporations exist to make profits and wield power to this end. But they are to some extent at the mercy of their public image, which in turn influences the pressure that shareholders may chose to apply. Witness what's happening with Shell being held to account by shareholders over its investment in the tar sands in Canada. The Supreme Court may have written corporate America a blank check, but case by case we can try to prevent them from cashing it.
Lets not forget the other decisions made by the Supreme Court that favor Corporations using Government as a tool: Kelo v. City of New London. Under this decision, the expansion of Eminent Domain was expanded to include as "for the public good", not just public projects, but allowed state and local governments to seize privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
In Kelo vs New London, the seized property was to expand Pfizers facilities of that city. Pfizer ended up closing the entire facility at a cost of 1400 jobs. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
Dissenting opinion by (surprise) Sandra Day O'Conner: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Hmmmmm .....this time it was the other Supreme Court Judges supporting an expansion of Government power for the use of Corporations. See a pattern here?
i've noted, thanks a lot :).
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment
20