Sunday, August 14, 2011


"Corporations Are People Too" -- a message about corporate personhood from Nero Fiddled. More:


Banning Corporate Personhood--How Communities are Taking the Law Back from Big Companies

Ben Price of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund explains how communities can fight corporate power with a new legal weapon.
July 14, 2011 |

The following is from Sabrina Artel's Trailer Talk: The Frack Talk Marcellus Shale Water Project. You can listen to the complete program here.

These last few days for gas drilling news in New York as been critical and a new level of urgency has been reached as the country watches how New York defines and decides its fate, the future of its famous unfiltered water supply, and communities in the directly impacted regions, whether for or against drilling are forging ahead to determine their immediate future and that for future generations.

It's coming down to Home Rule and self-determination as a way to protect municipalities from fracking. As the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) releases New Recommendations for Drilling in New York explained in the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) released a few days ago, environmental groups, like Catskill Mountainkeeper are calling for a statewide ban and municipalities organize to decide the fate of their towns.

Read more at the link:

Romney and “Corporate Personhood” on HOT AIR

Justin Elliott at Salon has a rather interesting history of the concept of corporate personhood in America’s court system, which Mitt Romney brought back into the spotlight with some recent comments at Ames. He’s exploring it in an interview with 2004 Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb, who hates the idea but still reveals some of the pertinent details of why Romney is right. Of course, the first quote from Cobb sets the tone for his argument.

Mitt Romney said “corporations are people.” Is he right?

Well, he’s correct in the sense that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that corporations are persons with inherent constitutional rights. Of course, he’s wrong just as the court is wrong.

I see. So he’s wrong except for the fact that the highest court in the land examined the question and said he was right? Got it.

See more at the link: