<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Noel Schutt &#187; FEC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://schutt.org/blog/tag/fec/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://schutt.org/blog</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:15:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Corporatocracy</title>
		<link>http://schutt.org/blog/2010/02/corporatocracy/</link>
		<comments>http://schutt.org/blog/2010/02/corporatocracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Noel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizens United]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://schutt.org/blog/?p=529</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s official. We live in a Corporatocracy. The recent 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC is a dangerous expansion of &#8216;corporate personhood.&#8217; I haven&#8217;t seen any convincing evidence supporting the ruling. I see no benefit from (and large problems with) the expansions of the already questionable doctrine of corporate personhood. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s official. We live in a Corporatocracy. The recent 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC is a dangerous expansion of &lsquo;corporate personhood.&rsquo; I haven&#8217;t seen any convincing evidence supporting the ruling. I see no benefit from (and large problems with) the expansions of the already questionable doctrine of corporate personhood. There is a reason that there have historically been limits placed on the &lsquo;rights&rsquo; of corporations. I highly recommend reading <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html">Stevens dissenting opinion</a> for an excellent (and well sourced) history of this concept. Stevens&#8217; opinion is the most convincing argument I have seen on the subject. Basically, any corporate &lsquo;rights&rsquo; are simply a convenience granted by the legislature (on behalf of the people), and are distinct from the inherent rights of citizens. Since corporations are not citizens, corporate &lsquo;speech&rsquo; can be limited to avoid corruption.</p>
<p>Since there are already so many loopholes, this ruling may not make much of a practical difference. But, still, it is a dangerous continuation of &lsquo;corporate personhood&rsquo; toward corporate sovereignty.</p>
<hr />
<p>Suggested reading:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html">Citizens United v.  Federal Election Commission</a>  (Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666">Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws</a> (NPR)</li>
<li><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/">What Is the First Amendment For?</a> by Stanley Fish (NYTimes)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.gocomics.com/paulszep/2010/02/02/">Paul Szep</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.gocomics.com/slowpoke/2010/02/01/">Slowpoke</a></li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://schutt.org/blog/2010/02/corporatocracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
