'The Story Of Stuff' Creators Explain Citizens United [Video]

America is a mess.

Many Americans, from those in the Tea Party to those participating in the national Occupy Wall Street movement, agree that the unbridled influence corporations have on our government is one of the main causes of this mess.

This influence is complicated, widespread, and in many cases, exerted behind closed doors. But Occupy Wall Street and those that support its efforts are working hard to expose these unscrupulous policies for what they are: detrimental to the security of the working middle-class.

One policy that’s been targeted by Occupy Wall Street from the beginning is the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people and should enjoy the same rights to privacy and free speech. If you weren’t paying attention when Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission occurred last year, it’s time to brush up on your legal history.

To help you cram, check out this video from Annie Leonard, the creative mind behind popular videos like “The Story of Stuff,” and “The Story of Electronics.”

According to Peter Rothberg of The Nation, it’s “a primer on exactly why the Supreme Court’s closely divided Citizens United decision is incompatible with basic notions of democratic governance.”

Related Reading:

Citizens United One Year Later

Top GOP Strategist Admits Occupy Wall Street Is Working

Feeding Ideas: A Look Inside The Zuccotti Park Kitchen

Recovering Scott Olsen Returns To Occupy Wall Street

Image Credit: Flickr – meadow03

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Dr C.

5:48PM PST on Jan 5, 2012

(@Tony S) Actually if memory serves me correctly, your point is largely what the citizens united decision was based upon. Again I'm playing from memory , but the FEC had a particular rule about regulating corporate financing that suffered from the defect that there appeared to be no clear and unbiased way to sort out the abusive corporate PAC's from those that might have been formed by actual individual citizens.

It was upon these grounds that the FEC's regulation was deemed to have violated the 1st amendment.

I had hoped that the FEC would have simply studied the ruling and refined their regulations to address the problem , but alas that did not come to pass.

send a green star

Damon M.

7:58AM PST on Dec 9, 2011

Tony S.

I agree with most of what you said. However, I wonder if I were to replace the word "corporation" in your post with the words "labor union" if you would still feel that way. Labor unions also rely on sympathetic governments to grant them power that they cannot gain on their own. The various laws which give labor unions "power through force of law" are just as detrimental to our ability to compete in the world economy.

When our forefathers stated that the state may not sanction a religion, they recognized that giving power to a religious group was greatest failing of their former county- Great Britian. However, they did not realize that the true source of this failing was not the giving of legal power to religious groups. It was giving legal power to ANY group.

Tony S.

7:52PM PST on Dec 7, 2011

I applaud the sign saying "Capitalism doesn't equal Corporatism". It's about time to teach people that corporatism has nothing to do with a free market! Corporatism involves corporations relying on a sympathetic government and politicians to work for laws protecting the corporation's interest to the detriment of competition. TRUE capitalism or a free market involves a level playing field for all with no perks, laws or favors being done for anyone! Once we all understand this and work toward this goal, wealth will increase multi-fold!

7:43PM PST on Dec 7, 2011

The sign featured here which reads "Capitalism does not equal Corporatism" is right on the money! It seems like few people understand that! Too many people fail to realize that Corporatism is NOT a free market activity! It requires the co-operation of corporations with a sympathetic government and politicians to pass laws and receive funds to protect their sorry rear ends! In a truly free society, corporations would be required to compete like everyone else! They wouldn't receive perks of any kind. Once this ends, you'll see prosperity thrive like it's never done before!

Eternal G.

5:15PM PST on Dec 5, 2011

Good!

James C.

4:11PM PST on Dec 4, 2011

Hopefully we can do something so far the next election is already bought and paid for by the corperations. We not only need this amendment we need to empeach the corrupt supreme court justices who passed this bogus law from the bench.Then we need to empeach every last polititian who believes corperations are people.its a statr but we have a long fight ahead of us.

John M.

12:13PM PST on Dec 4, 2011

Very good video.Well worthwhile watching. Thank you for the article...

Past Member .

6:39AM PST on Dec 4, 2011

Excellent, and some helpful educated comments, as often happens on Care2!

Chad A.

9:34PM PST on Dec 3, 2011

This is a story we need to keep out there.

Toby S.

3:45PM PST on Dec 3, 2011

The USDOJ ushered in massive corruption under the policy of "alternative defenses". This policy allows attorneys to lie in court and judges to make rulings contrary to law. Judges now sell rulings to the high bidder. Both attorneys (theirs and yours), the judge and the wrongdoer benefit while the victim is screwed. Thieves are winning.

Here's how it works. You file a suit for being defrauded, represented by an attorney. The other side files a countersuit and makes from 2 to 20 "defenses" none of which are truthfull. In discovery and your answer, your attorney must spend massive time dealing with the "alternatives", driving the cost through the roof. If you continue to trial, the facts are so burried and made complicated, that the judge can then ignore relevent law and cite only the points he chooses. Thus the ruling is "sold", made by the will of the judge and not by law.

Thus we are not receiving the judges honest services of his public office, but just like his government friends, he can personally benefit and not be held accountable. For proof, compare the last twenty years of complaints against judges and the number of disciplinary actions...NONE are held liable.

ABSOLUTE POWER HAS CORRUPTED...ABSOLUTELY.

For those that leave this problem out of the Occupy manifesto, all of your other concerns will be wiped out in the courts if change is not made there. Don't ignore corruption in courts and the fact that most of government are attorneys (or fea