Solidarity. Finally: hear Bradley Manning in his own voice | Glenn Greenwald. (updated below) The court-martial proceeding of Bradley Manning has, rather ironically, been shrouded in extreme secrecy, often exceeding even that which prevails at Guantanamo military commissions. This secrecy prompted the Center for Constitutional Rights to commence formal legal action on behalf of several journalists and activists, including myself, to compel greater transparency.
One particularly oppressive rule governing the Manning trial has barred not only all video or audio recordings of the proceedings, but also any photographs being taken of Manning or even transcripts made of what is said in court. Combined with the prohibition on all press interviews with him, this extraordinary secrecy regime has meant that, in the two-and-a-half years since his arrest, the world has been prevented, literally, from hearing Manning's voice. That changes today. Hear the full audio here or in excerpts below: Manning on the Apache helicopter video Manning on the Iraq and Afghanistan War logs.
Big Money Doesn't Always Win: Fracking Bans, No Coal Exports. This is an archived story. The information and any links may no longer be accurate. Following up on our article, Key Votes to Watch: Climate, Fracking, Coal Exports, here are the results from the 2013 election. Fracking Votes in Colorado There's great news from Colorado, where three of four cities voting on fracking moratoriums approved them. Most importantly, Lafayette voters passed a Community Bill of Rights, which permanently bans oil and gas drilling. It also prohibits corporations from storing or transporting chemicals, water or any byproduct of drilling in the city.
It bans any infrastructure that facilitates the extraction of oil, gas or nuclear, and bans any extraction of city water for those purposes. Voters in Fort Collins and Boulder passed five year moratoriums on fracking with strong margins. Proponents were outspent 40-1, with the oil and gas industry pouring in a whopping $900,000 in contrast to $26,000 raised by activists.
Coal Exports in Washington State. Fracking ban - eLetters. A woman collects signatures for a Broomfield anti-fracking petition on July 27. (David R. Jennings, Broomfield Enterprise) Re: “Municipal fracking bans in Colorado should be voted down,” Oct. 17 editorial endorsement. In its editorial, The Post argues that several Colorado municipalities should reject ballot measures that would establish local moratoriums or bans on fracking. Communities should have the right to weigh in on what happens in their backyards. Several Colorado towns have already passed similar measures — as have numerous communities (and some states) nationwide. The residents of these places will have to live with the consequences if fracking moves in. After all, we’re still assessing the damage from recent flooding in Colorado’s oil and gas fields. Kate Sinding, New York City The writer is director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Community Fracking Defense Project.
Fracking and Local Referendums. Kate Sinding, Senior Attorney, New York City Voters in at least three more Colorado municipalities, as well as another in Ohio, approved anti-fracking measures in Tuesday's elections, continuing a trend whereby local communities are standing up in support of their right to self-determination in the face of rapidly expanding oil and gas development nationwide. In Colorado, residents of Fort Collins approved a 5-year moratorium on any new fracking "in order to fully study the impacts of this process on property values and human health. " Boulder voters, meanwhile, extended an existing fracking moratorium until June 2018. And residents of Lafayette adopted a "community bill of rights" that, among other things, prohibits oil and gas extraction from within city limits.
As I wrote in a letter to the editor of the Denver Post last month: "Communities should have the right to weigh in on what happens in their backyards. Photo Credit: Fracking Referendums/shutterstock. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund : Index. Jeremy Rifkin: A New Era of Capitalism.
THE PLUTOCRATS. Ecology. Petitions. Wisconsin Eminent Domain | General. If the government intends to acquire your property for a public use project, it's imperative to know and understand your rights in the Wisconsin eminent domain process. Frequently, the only information a property owner will receive regarding the Wisconsin eminent domain process is a pamphlet created by the condemning authority. When it comes to eminent domain, the government is playing in their arena; they do this every day.
They know what the rules are, they know how the rules affect them, and they also know how the rules affect you. For these reasons and more, it's important to understand your rights from a property owner's perspective, and not just from the condemning authority's perspective. In the following pages, we provide the details you need to know about eminent domain in Wisconsin, your rights as a property owner, and hiring an eminent domain attorney. Additonally, we urge you to read our blog for more information. Wisconsin Eminent Domain Process.
An Atlantic Correspondent Speaks Out Against Citizens United - The Editors. Kent Greenfield for Democracy Journal: The Stakeholder Strategy. Issue #26, Fall 2012 Kent Greenfield John Bonifaz is a wiry, bespectacled man with graying temples and a hearty laugh that camouflages his seriousness. He’s fought many progressive fights over the years on issues ranging from voting rights (which won him a MacArthur “genius grant”) to Unocal’s liability for human rights abuses in Myanmar (on which we worked together to draft a lawsuit).
We’ve been friends for nearly 30 years, ever since we were student activists at Brown University. These days, however, we find ourselves differing vociferously on what to do about Citizens United v. Nevertheless, I believe that the move to amend is a bad, even horrible, idea. John and I recently debated Citizens United on television, and during our exchange he said something particularly revealing. The reality is different. This essay urges progressives to cease their efforts to amend the constitution to weaken corporate “personhood.” The Foundational Nature of Corporate Law Yes, this is bizarre.
The Corruption of Democracy. Environmental law. Part 2: Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornel West Call on Obama to Host a White House Conf. on Ending Poverty.
Alternative Radio — Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism. In these eye-opening interviews with prominent economist Richard Wolff, David Barsamian probes the root causes of the current economic crisis, its unjust social consequences and what can and should be done to turn things around. While others blame corrupt bankers and unregulated speculators or the government or even the poor who borrowed, the authors show that the causes of the crisis run much deeper. They reach back to the 1970s when the capitalist system itself shifted, ending the century-old pattern of rising wages for U.S. workers and thereby enabling the top 1% to become ultra-rich at the expense of the 99%.
Since then, economic injustice has become chronic and further corrupted politics. The Occupy movement, by articulating deep indignation with the whole system, mobilizes huge numbers who seek basic change. Occupy the Economy not only clarifies and analyzes the crisis in U.S. capitalism today, it also points toward solutions that can shape a far better future for all. Author(s): @Google: Lawrence Lessig: Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It.
Corporate Personhood-Demeaning Our Bill of Rights - Reclaim Democracy.org. Contents Introduction to Corporate Personhood Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government.
This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations. But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800′s by establishing the doctrine of “corporate personhood” — the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings. We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Read our draft constitutional amendment to revoke corporate constitutional “rights,” (published nearly a decade before the Citizens United v FEC ruling). Overviews back to top Current Debates Relating to Corporate Personhood Recommended Articles. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)[dead link], is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. Background The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates.
Before the Supreme Court Opinions of the Court Overview Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a matter brought before the United States Supreme Court – but not decided by the court – which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. A report issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court – without a decision or written opinions published by or of the Court. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, have recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution.
In the opinion, the Court consolidated three separate cases: History and legal dispute Headnote Bancroft Davis, the Court Reporter and former president of Newburgh and New York Railway Waite replied: C. Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Campaign Finance Reform | The New Rules Project. In the United States, candidates for public office have always needed money to run for public office. To get it they have often depended on wealthy contributors expecting favors in return. In 1971, the federal government passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), in an attempt to combat this phenomenon. The FECA (which was amended several times until 1979) put a cap on the amount a single donor could contribute to a campaign for federal government, and required public disclosure of these contributions.
But the landmark 1976 Supreme Court ruling, Buckley v. Valeo undid a portion of these reforms. The most controversial aspect of the ruling was that spending limits (as opposed to contribution limits) for candidates for public office were a violation of free speech. Despite these reforms, and, in part due to the Buckely v. Meanwhile,the states have been plagued by the same problems afflicting campaigns for federal office. States Enact Campaign Finance Reforms More Information: Beyond Hope | Derrick Jensen | Derrick Jensen. By Derrick Jensen Photograph by Stephen Wilkes THE MOST COMMON WORDS I hear spoken by any environmentalists anywhere are, We’re fucked. Most of these environmentalists are fighting desperately, using whatever tools they have—or rather whatever legal tools they have, which means whatever tools those in power grant them the right to use, which means whatever tools will be ultimately ineffective—to try to protect some piece of ground, to try to stop the manufacture or release of poisons, to try to stop civilized humans from tormenting some group of plants or animals.
Sometimes they’re reduced to trying to protect just one tree. Here’s how John Osborn, an extraordinary activist and friend, sums up his reasons for doing the work: “As things become increasingly chaotic, I want to make sure some doors remain open. But no matter what environmentalists do, our best efforts are insufficient. Frankly, I don’t have much hope. But it isn’t only false hopes that keep those who go along enchained. Why? Noam Chomsky on Corporate Personhood: 2011. Message from Jeremy Rifkin to 15M, Occupy, etc. Missoula voters say corporations are not people, ask for constitutional amendment. Movement to Abolish Corporate Personhood Gaining Traction. By Kaitlin Sopoci-BelknapPublished July 1, 2011 Editor’s note: ReclaimDemocracy.org is a member of the Move to Amend coalition. We’re thrilled that our original home base of Boulder, CO is now among the communities driving localopposition to corporate personhood.
In the year and a half since the Citizens United decision, Americans from all walks of life have become concerned about corporate dominance of our government and our society as a whole. In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Throughout the country people have responded by organizing against “corporate personhood,” a court-created precedent that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings. The movement is flowering not in the halls of Congress, but at the local level, where all real social movements start.
At the forefront of this movement is Move to Amend, a national coalition of hundreds of organizations and over 113,000 individuals (and counting). Home. Fighting Corporate Personhood and Restoring Citizen Control over Corporations - A Resource Guide. "... it's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. What kind of freedom is there inside a corporation? They're totalitarian institutions - you take orders from above and maybe give them to people below you. There's about as much freedom as under Stalinism. " - Noam Chomsky From ReclaimDemocracy: NOTE: You can link to any of the documents, court cases, organizations or case studies listed below from this page: / Introduction to Corporate Personhood Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings.
But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings. Overviews Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powersby Jan Edwards (pdf) Munn v. The Corporations That Occupy Congress. Some of the biggest companies in the United States have been firing workers and in some cases lobbying for rules that depress wages at the very time that jobs are needed, pay is low, and the federal budget suffers from a lack of revenue.
Last month Citizens for Tax Justice and an affiliate issued “Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10″. It showed that 30 brand-name companies paid a federal income tax rate of minus 6.7 percent on $160 billion of profit from 2008 through 2010 compared to a going corporate tax rate of 35 percent. All but one of those 30 companies reported lobbying expenses in Washington. Another report, by Public Campaign, shows that 29 of those companies spent nearly half a billion dollars over those three years lobbying in Washington for laws and rules that favor their interests. Only Atmos Energy, the 30th company, reported no lobbying. These and other companies have access to lawmakers and regulators that are unavailable to ordinary Americans. Doubt that?
Local Laws | eugeneweekly.com. Thomas Linzey - Part 1 (of 4) Occupy Together... Crisis? what crisis? Fault Lines... Occupy Wall Street. Political Petitions. Corporation.