Saturday, January 23, 2010

Daniel Corsair: Supreme Court gives United States of America back to Britain and the world

  It was just announced that in a 5 to 4 decision, the United State's Supreme Court voted to allow corporations the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign ads. It is said that this ruling wipes out decades of legislation which worked to provide the American people with a voting system that was intent on only supporting the American voter.

  I have scoured the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and nowhere do I find that our forefathers intended for our country to be controlled by businesses, corporations or foreigners. Because so much of our country has been bought up by foreigners, foreign companies and corporations, the Supreme Court has given our country away to the world and severely diminished the rights of the American people.

  The purpose of campaign advertising is to influence voters to a position of thinking, so if a foreign-owned company, operating under the rules of the United States Corporation, chooses to influence the outcome of our elections, they now have the freedom to spend and channel unlimited amounts of money into creating that influence.

  I fail to understand how or why our government chooses to treat corporations and businesses as though they should have rights that are equal to those of the American people. The primary intention of a corporation or any type of business given by government is to create a taxing authority to ensure that monies are paid to the government for the benefit of the people. Are corporations now being given the right to influence that government, the government of the people by the people and for the people?

  A corporation or business is nothing more than a legal tool that is exclusively designed to serve the greater good of the people by providing goods, services and to distribute monies in the form of compensation to the people employed under them for services rendered. Further, if a business or corporation begins to operate in a fashion that is not in the best interest of the people, whether those people be consumers or employees, then it should be the legislative, administrative and judicial arms of our government's responsibility to regulate those businesses and corporations so that they are accountable to the service of the people.

  Under the Constitution it is the people who vote for elected officials, a process that has existed since our founding fathers laid their signatures down. On that very premise the process of voting for elected officials should be reserved exclusively for those people who have the right to vote. The idea that a corporation - an entity created for tax purposes that has no right to stand in the voting booth - has been given the right to have influence on the outcome of the elections for the government of the people of the United States of America is very sad commentary on our country.

  This is an issue that should have all Americans - Republicans, Independents and Democrats - outraged at the least. We as Americans need to realize that this country belongs to us and when elected officials are not focusing on our best interests and needs they should be held accountable. I encourage everyone who reads this to pass it on to contact local and national media and to contact your elected officials to express your opinion.

  Speak out, Americans, stand up and speak out for your America!

  About the author: Daniel Corsair: My participation in this country has always been from the position of what I feel is best for America and the American people. I have changed political persuasions over the years and will probably continue to do so as I see fit or necessary. I leave my political beliefs at the voting booth, when I step out I become an American seeking the good for Americans.

Article Source:


  1. Any citizen who bases their vote on campaign advertising is shirking their duty to this republic. If citizens are unable to distinguish between political ads and the truth, then what does it matter if corporations influence elections? All is lost anyway. The moral loss here is not the change in law but the long-ago abdication of individual responsiblity in making well-informed votes.

  2. Bingo! I'd argue that the same applies to those advocating term limits on elected officials. It's the equivalent of saying: "We're too incompetent and uninformed to make wise decisions at the ballot box, so we'll keep things in check by curbing campaign advertising, imposing term limits, etc."

  3. Yes, term limits are an admission of our weakness, not the politcians.