Kurt Vonnegut cited by ACLU in _Citizens United v. F.E.C._
Interesting note:
In the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case _Citizens United v. F.E.C._, the ACLU submitted a brief in support of Citizens United! In it, among others, they cite Kurt Vonnegut as an authority. This citation is referenced in support of the statement, "Promoting equality as a compelling interest over freedom will result in more and more severe restrictions on freedom in chasing the rainbow of equality."
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuACRU.pdf
I have to say that although I recognize the importance of confirming the principle of equal freedom of expression for all persons, I vehemently believe that the principle of corporate personhood is a fundamental antagonist to the social contract between the the government and the governed. I do not take issue with the right of free expression of corporate persons. I take serious issue with the notion that corporations are persons at all.
The incorporation of non-human entities and the recognition of these entities as persons exists to promote the economic development of society by removing the human actors who drive corporations from the legal consequences and liabilities of their actions in support of the goals and missions of their companies. This has resulted in arguably great benefits to American society, at arguably tremendously greater cost to both ourselves and the world at large. The conflict with the social contract is that as corporate entities establish themselves and grow and dominate the collected resources of both our nation and the world at large, they become less and less constrained in their willingness to use those resources to influence the political processes of government. At this point, the last significant restriction on the use of that influence has been removed, and the result is that the consent of the governed is no longer a necessary factor in the actions of government. Federal elected officials now have no need to even pretend to hear, much less respond to, the concerns of simple human citizens who cannot bring to the table monies sufficient to counter the influence of massive multinational corporations who easily fund all the media necessary to win those officials re-election despite their worst shortcomings.
The United States of America has reached a cusp. Either Congress will act to mitigate this disastrous decision, or people will act at the local levels (as has already happened in Oregon, and is happening in the California state Senate). If the actions at the local level in the political arena are insufficient re-establish a State in which the voices of the governed are heard by those who govern, then experiment in Democracy which is the United States of America will come to an end. What replaces it, and how that replacement happens, I can only ponder. What I can say is that I definitely do NOT like what I am pondering.
In the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case _Citizens United v. F.E.C._, the ACLU submitted a brief in support of Citizens United! In it, among others, they cite Kurt Vonnegut as an authority. This citation is referenced in support of the statement, "Promoting equality as a compelling interest over freedom will result in more and more severe restrictions on freedom in chasing the rainbow of equality."
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuACRU.pdf
I have to say that although I recognize the importance of confirming the principle of equal freedom of expression for all persons, I vehemently believe that the principle of corporate personhood is a fundamental antagonist to the social contract between the the government and the governed. I do not take issue with the right of free expression of corporate persons. I take serious issue with the notion that corporations are persons at all.
The incorporation of non-human entities and the recognition of these entities as persons exists to promote the economic development of society by removing the human actors who drive corporations from the legal consequences and liabilities of their actions in support of the goals and missions of their companies. This has resulted in arguably great benefits to American society, at arguably tremendously greater cost to both ourselves and the world at large. The conflict with the social contract is that as corporate entities establish themselves and grow and dominate the collected resources of both our nation and the world at large, they become less and less constrained in their willingness to use those resources to influence the political processes of government. At this point, the last significant restriction on the use of that influence has been removed, and the result is that the consent of the governed is no longer a necessary factor in the actions of government. Federal elected officials now have no need to even pretend to hear, much less respond to, the concerns of simple human citizens who cannot bring to the table monies sufficient to counter the influence of massive multinational corporations who easily fund all the media necessary to win those officials re-election despite their worst shortcomings.
The United States of America has reached a cusp. Either Congress will act to mitigate this disastrous decision, or people will act at the local levels (as has already happened in Oregon, and is happening in the California state Senate). If the actions at the local level in the political arena are insufficient re-establish a State in which the voices of the governed are heard by those who govern, then experiment in Democracy which is the United States of America will come to an end. What replaces it, and how that replacement happens, I can only ponder. What I can say is that I definitely do NOT like what I am pondering.