once again, Charles, you make these pronouncements . . .

are there any links that provide a balanced view of just which candidates have what financial interests in which corporations?

that's what I'd like to see

anybody?

Colombia

I know its you country of origin and everything Charles but should we really be using Columbia as a model for democracy?

I am no expert but haven't they been in the midst of a 30 year civil war? Government Vs Drug Cartels Vs Communist rebels?

I spoke with labor organizers from Columbia a few years back. They said trying to organize a Union there was the sure fire way to get a bullet in your head.

I also noticed that your previous post about change politics in Columbia featured at least one politician that was assassinated for trying to change things.

Perhaps my facts are old but it seems like an odd choice.

I couldn't agree with you more, as far as the money game in politics goes. We give corporations far too much latitude to influence candidates, when they should have exactly zero (the one thing Texas gets completely right in electoral law). Neither should we give lobbyists that power. The only solution is public financing for all federal elections... then, and only then, can we hope to stop the cycle of big money -> big payoffs.

Third parties in the US system start with the deck heavily stacked against them. Everything from modern (read: ad-driven) campaigning to ballot access is designed to keep them out. I suppose the entrenched powers learned their lesson with the Bull Moose party. :( I feel this change must start at the top, but it leads to a vicious cycle: how do you get people willing to change the system to the top of it, when the system is designed to keep them out?

BTW that hyperlink doesn't seem to be working

I spoke with labor organizers from Columbia a few years back. They said trying to organize a Union there was the sure fire way to get a bullet in your head.

This law separates those who govern the country from those who campaign. They get time to think, reflect on policy and yet neither fail to do the people’s business as they are doing now nor have to take political stands in terms of controversial votes. They can better speak their minds without having to watch their backs.

You mean like Hillary missing the Telecom Immunity vote?

I really like that Idea, Nobody can run if they are currently holding another office.

I really like that Idea, Nobody can run if they are currently holding another office.

How would these people make a living? Go on corporate payroll?

Re Telecom Immunity:

House Democrats have been sticking their necks out on this issue and no one is giving them credit for this courage. I watched these hearings on CSPAN and I was so damned proud of the House dems, but then I was disappointed to find that no Dems on any of the blogs I'm familiar with spoke about this. Why?

From Magnolia's link:

Republican John McCain and Barack Obama both voted on amendments to the measure; Obama opposed telecom immunity, while McCain supported it. Clinton left town early to get to a campaign stop in Texas.

Although he voted to sustain a filibuster on the FISA update, Obama left Washington for a campaign stop in Wisconisn without voting on the final bill.

It is up to the House to decide whether to let telecoms off the hook in about 40 civil lawsuits alleging their participation in President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. A temporary extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act expires at midnight Saturday, and the House on Wednesday failed to extend that deadline.

One more Clinton link (hey, Charles wanted to Vet obama, so let's vet clinton too).

Rezko co-defendants and who they gave contributions to

How would these people make a living? Go on corporate payroll?

It's amazing to me that I automatically assumed that everyone who runs for president is independantly wealthy that they didn't need a job. blink

One again Magnolia, you have provided some excellent research. I doubt that you'll get any credit for it though. You'll no doubt be put into the box of being a member of the cult notwithstanding that you always provide a link to back up what you say and notwithstanding the fact that you always present a cogent argument which is always ignored.

Obama needs to join Hillary in the gutter

Too often, good guys finish last.

Granted, it's merely a coincidence that the Rezko story ripened days before the big Texas and Ohio primaries. But Obama was practically skewered by the press on questions related to Rezko. Meanwhile, Clinton's stonewalling on the release of her tax returns, and the Clintons' friendship with people who ended up in legal trouble weren't mentioned.

Yes.. Hillary Clinton supporters were bitching about the media being biased towards Obama, and her meme worked quite well. In the lead-up to the Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont campaigns, the media became very critical towards Obama and began to kiss Hillary's ass. The media is so damned fickle.

It's time for a little, "Shame on you Hillary Rodham Clinton!"

For some voters who were still on the fence, the repeated sound bites on the NAFTA gaffe were enough to push them into the Hillary camp.

Obama is going to abandon his "feel good" campaign. He has too. Clinton is playing dirty and negative campaigns work. Expect the upcoming weeks to expose all of the mud on both of their faces. They would have to contend with this mud in a general election, so perpaps this is probably a good thing. I just hope that Bomb-Iran-McCain is defeated.

And, Magnolia, as you have pointed out, politics is dirty. It's filthy. Both Hillary and Barack and John have mud on their face as concerns being influenced by corporations. Of course. Why do any of us support either Hillary or Barack? They are basically twins.

Clintons got money from Rezko co-defendants by margieburns on Sat 02 Feb 2008 01:26 PM EST | Permanent Link

Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago’s “Operation Board Games.”

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

One of the arguments against campaign finance reform is that it would be a violation of the First Amendment. Despite the fact that this seems to run counter to what was intended by the First amendment, this is a compelling argument. So, it seems to me that the way to reduce corporate influence in electoral politics is to reduce the power of corporations. One way to do this is to bring back the corporate charter. Prior to the Civil War, corporations were granted charters by the government, and the charter could be revoked at any time if the government discerned that the terms of the charter had been violated. In a specious 1886 Supreme Court ruling, the Fourteenth Amendment (originally adopted to protect freed slaves) was invoked to grant corporations "personhood," which in turn rendered the corporate charter unconstitutional. Overturning this ruling would be a good first step, but since nearly everyone in the political establishment is beholden to corporations, this doesn't seem like a realistic option. Here's an interesting page on the incident: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

He has too.

How embarrassing... That should have been "he has to"..

And to some posters here, please learn the difference between "then" and "than"... please!

Prior to the Civil War, corporations were granted charters by the government

Yeah, well, prior to the Civil War neither women nor blacks had the right to vote and American Indians were forced to accept Christianity. I find it a bit tiresome to always return to the early days when the U.S. had nothing at all to brag about in terms of being democratic.

I am so sick and tired of Americans always looking backwards towards how wonderful our country was and how we represent the new and advanced way of thinking. We should be thinking in terms of enlightenment on a global scale instead of always returning to the "old days" when the United States had slaves and women couldn't vote, and when Europeans had kings. I should hope that we have all progressed way beyond those ideas by now.

In a specious 1886 Supreme Court ruling, the Fourteenth Amendment (originally adopted to protect freed slaves) was invoked to grant corporations "personhood,"

This absolutely should be overturned. I don't know why it isn't mentioned more. A corporation is not a person and should NOT be taxed (counterintuitive I know, but better economists than me have gone into depth on this, which I won't do here. Supercapitalism is a good place to start, also, "The Corporation" the movie is an interesting study of corporations, as a person)

One again Magnolia, you have provided some excellent research. I doubt that you'll get any credit for it though.

Thanks Joann, just trying to keep up with your quality of posts.

What's amazing to me is every bit of mud that hillary is tossing seems to be because she's in the mud to throw it, so to speak. Her condemnations of Obama over his policies and ethics always seems to find a way back and tie themselves to her too. The only way this might hurt Obama is because he's focused on being not an "insider politician" and so any of this mud turns him into one, while clinton (who people expect to be THE insider politician) comes out looking spotless.

Joann,

I don't see how you could infer from my remarks that I am in favor of slavery or a lack of women's suffrage. I even comment on how the Fourteenth Amendment was ORIGINALLY ADOPTED TO PROTECT FREED SLAVES, and how that honorable intention was misused to increase corporate power. I am so sick and tired of Americans always looking backwards towards how wonderful our country was and how we represent the new and advanced way of thinking. Well, I am sick and tired of the way you cherry pick portions of other people's comments simply because you are spoiling for a fight. Indeed, it often keeps me from commenting here. If you want to fight so badly, why don't you visit Powerline or something. Here's the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/

"How do I remind you that one of the many things that the Founding Fathers railed against were corporations?"

Quote some of the passages you're thinking about. The modern corporation really didn't exist in 1800.

I acutally like the single six year term for presidents. It probably won't reduce corporate influence, but it will stop this perverse system where the first four years are about getting reelected and the second four years are all about having no new policies and trying to break the law.

The "more parties" solution isn't as good. Having more pro-labor parties would be great, but it seems to assume a can opener. You need people to support the parties if you're going to have viable, influential parties. The first past the post system, the electoral college, etc., may prevent us from having a socialist party represented in Congress, but they're probably not preventing us from having less corporate friendly poliices. Adding more voices does not mean that only left voices will be added. There are conservative groups as well--Christian conservative, anti-immigrant, etc.--who would love to have some more say than they currently have.

In fact it's probably our consensual institutions--the Senate filibuster is a big one--and not our majoritarian institutions (electoral college, first past the post voting), which is preventing more left wing reforms. That's because a majority of people favor these policies. So the solution would be to empower the majority, not left-wing (and right-wing) mniorities.

Assuming a can opener:

http://www.callipygia600.com/callnugget/alljokes/econmist.htm

Quote some of the passages you're thinking about. The modern corporation really didn't exist in 1800.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812 Source:Liberty Quotes

I'm sorry, I just can't help myself:

Here's an interesting PR firm who defends many corporations:

Burson-Marsteller

Just for a clip of the kind of work B-M does, they worked for rBGH manufacturer Monsanto.

In the 1980s recombinant bovine growth hormone or bovine somatatrophin (rBGH/BST) was Monsanto’s flagship biotechnology product. A genetically engineered substitute for the cows’ growth hormone, rBGH was developed to increase the milk yield of dairy cows, a market that Monsanto’s CEO R.J. Mahoney estimated in 1985 to be worth $1bn a year. It was also one of the first biotech products to be readied for the market and as such the whole biotech industry had an interest. The only problems were gaining approval for its commercial use and some unfavourable scientific opinions of the artificial hormone. Monsanto’s own tests showed an increased risk of mastitis in rBGH treated cattle, that the milk went off quicker and that it contained higher levels of pus. FDA scientist, Dr Richard Burroughs concluded from analysing test data that Monsanto was manipulating the figures. In 1989 he was sacked after complaining to Congress that his superiors were suppressing his accusations.

You don't have to be bill Maher to know why rBGH is a bad thing to have in your milk. Monsanto is one of the major reasons why a bill in PA died which would label milk that had rBGH in it.

Who do you think is the CEO of such a heineous PR firm, ah, there it is. Mark Penn (and I don't think I have to tell you whose campaign he's working for. Google him if you don't know.)

she's back! and she's pissed off! oh, happy day.

Joann,

I don't see how you could infer from my remarks that I am in favor of slavery or a lack of women's suffrage

I did not infer that from your remarks. Go back and read more carefully what I did, in fact, say.

Dende Blogger said:

So the solution would be to empower the majority, not left-wing (and right-wing) mniorities.

For the most part, I agree with what you said. However, don't we have the Supreme Court in order to prevent the majority from abusing the minority?

Magnolia said:

Her condemnations of Obama over his policies and ethics always seems to find a way back and tie themselves to her too

His condemnations also find their way back also. Politics is dirty business.

she's back! and she's pissed off! oh, happy day.

LOL jonathan! And oh happy day to find you here! ;)

Yeah, well, prior to the Civil War neither women nor blacks had the right to vote and American Indians were forced to accept Christianity. I find it a bit tiresome to always return to the early days when the U.S. had nothing at all to brag about in terms of being democratic.

Here it is, Joann. Seems like that was your inference.

Big Daddy,

I wasn't inferring that you, Big Daddy, were in favor of slavery or the subjugation of women.. of course no.

I was only suggesting that that the U.S. was not all that democratic in the beginning. Do you disagree with this?

I was only suggesting that that the U.S. was not all that democratic in the beginning. Do you disagree with this?

It's a mixed bag. Women, blacks, indians & poor folks all got the short end of the stick back in the "good ol' days," but corporations had less power, and those who could vote wielded more power than today's voters. Newspapers were more plentiful & represented a broader spectrum of ideas; it was easier for the average joe to go into business for himself or run for office; and things like "In God We Trust" weren't branded all over everything. It could be (and has been) argued that the Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights would never be ratified in today's political climate. That seems to tip the scales toward less democracy.

At any rate, that's not what this discussion is about. Charles' post was about the increased influence of corporations in the electoral process, not whether we are more or less democratic now than we were in the past. My pre-Civil War comment was based solely on this aspect and not the entire universe of democratic rights. I was merely attempting to pinpoint precisely when & why corporations gained so much power in the political process and what might be done to remedy the problem. Obviously, there was much wrong with the country back then; presumably, a century from now we will look back on present times more or less the way we now look back on pre-Civil War days, unless of course we nuke ourselves or disintegrate into fascism or get slammed by a comet or some such thing.

are there any links that provide a balanced view of just which candidates have what financial interests in which corporations?

I can't do all the work for you. You can leverage the links that others are kindly providing. They are ALL tied. It is just a different client list, though many corporations also hedge their bets.

If you believe that link in the chain needs to be broken, then Nader should enter your list of possibilities. There are of course good reasons not to cast your vote for Nader, but the above is an argument for Nader.

There is a reason why I bring up so many Latin American examples. The reason is that between 1973 and 2000, the continent to varying degrees was subjected to bizarre economic experiments by Milton Freidman and his University of Chicago boys. They wrecked the continent. By 2000, some countries were worse off that they had been in 1960.

It is no accident that this led to the rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Desperate times lead to desperate men.

Yet the rest of continent has managed to become a more reasoned social laboratory. In Argentina, for example, when plants shut down, the workers took them over made them a worker's cooperatives. My last visit to Buenos Aires back in November, I stayed in a worker-owned hotel.

Latin America can be viewed as a cutting edge social experimenter. They have to try something new because Friedmanism was a disaster.

If you want to read more about the effects of Friedmanism in Latin America and in the United States, one good book is Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

One of the arguments against campaign finance reform is that it would be a violation of the First Amendment.

I intend to tackle this in a future post. No corporations do NOT have First Amendments. Certainly the Founding Fathers did not grant them those rights. The Supreme Court granted corporations free speech rights and have been increasing them over the years. To be brief, the case of Union Pacific v. The County of Santa Clara in 1873 set us down that path. See why I say we are fighting battles we fought in the 1870s. "Useless" Grant sold out the country to the big trusts. We also got it back during the period 1932-1968, but since then it has been one continuous assault upon us.

Charles Lemos

How would these people make a living? Go on corporate payroll?

I hate to break it to you but they are all millionaires. Now how did a community organizer who has never worked for major corporate firm and then has spent the last 12 years working in the Illinois State Legislature and the US Senate become a millionaire?

Look into that question, and you will find another reason not to vote for Barack Obama.

One way to do this is to bring back the corporate charter.

Oh BigDaddyMalcontent. I LOVE YOU! You win the prize. You get it. Thank you.

BigDaddy is paying attention. He is right. He is my new best friend.

Seriously, thank you. Your comment is simply brilliant. Everyone should read that comment.

Charles

Now how did a community organizer who has never worked for major corporate firm and then has spent the last 12 years working in the Illinois State Legislature and the US Senate become a millionaire?

He was not a Millionaire until he became a US Senator. How did he do it? He wrote a book and capitalized on his new fame.

Sen.Barack Obama(D-Ill.)

Net worth: $1-$2.5 million*

Details: In January 2005, Obama agreed to a $1.9 million advance from Random House for two non-ficton books and a children's book, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400305_pf.html

Another baseless accusation from Charles Lemos

I find it a bit tiresome to always return to the early days when the U.S. had nothing at all to brag about in terms of being democratic.

JoAnn you know I love you but here you are wrong. It is precisely because we have deviated from the approach to government and civil society that the Founding Fathers advocated that we find ourselves in this mess.

BigDaddyMalcontent (what a great screen name) is absolutely right. Right his comment again.

Carlo il radicale con senso sensible

Thanks, Charles.

JoAnn you know I love you but here you are wrong. It is precisely because we have deviated from the approach to government and civil society that the Founding Fathers advocated that we find ourselves in this mess

Ye who loves me so much:

If the founding fathers were so wonderful, then why were blacks enslaved and women not allowed the right to vote? Why did "we"have to end up years later passing anti-trust legislation?

are there any links that provide a balanced view of just which candidates have what financial interests in which corporations?

Charles said

I can't do all the work for you

Oh, come on now. That's a cop out. If you claim something, you should provide proof. Saying that you can't do all the work is just lame.

If the founding fathers were so wonderful, then why were blacks enslaved and women not allowed the right to vote? Why did "we"have to end up years later passing anti-trust legislation?

The truth in this arguement is right in the middle.

The founding fathers developed a system of govt that was ahead of the times but lacking in a number of ways, but they were smart enough to create a system that could be made more free, but would have to violate its core principles to become less free.

Unfortunately corporate freedom worked its way into the system.

The point is that the so-called founding fathers of the U.S. weren't all that enlightened. To argue a point, it is best to use philosophical arguments and not just point to the "founding fathers".

If the founding fathers were so wonderful, then why were blacks enslaved and women not allowed the right to vote? Why did "we"have to end up years later passing anti-trust legislation?

Because like all humans they inherited their predecessors' bad decisions, misconceptions & superstitions. You seem to think anything short of perfection is unacceptable. Under the circumstances, Jefferson et al. did a marvelous job. It's true that by our standards there were startling shortcomings among the Framers, but by their standards they were astonishingly advanced. You can't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyway, all of Europe has managed to be enlightened without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

It's true that by our standards there were startling shortcomings among the Framers, but by their standards they were astonishingly advanced. You can't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, they had some good ideas. The point I'm attempting to make, to no avail, is that just because the "founding fathers" of the U.S. claimed something was good, doesn't make it so. You should use philosphical arguments to backup what you say other than just saying that the "founding fathers" of the U.S. said so, as if other countries don't also have some good ideas, if not even better ideas!

Jefferson's distrust of religion and aristocracy are some of the founding principles. I would actually say that was pretty enlightened. The bill of rights too.

England has a state church and no first amendment. They could still use a few folks like Jefferson.

All of Europe is enlightened? Didn't Theo Van Gogh get assassinated? Aren't Basque separatists blowing shit up? What about Northern Ireland? Chechnya? French riots? The EU can't agree on a constitution; Turkey is dangerously close to Islamic dictatorship; grinding poverty in Greece & Italy; just the other day, Serb extremists set fire to the American embassy. Is this the enlightenment you're talking about?

Will you two stop?

who throws Turkey in the face of a pro European culture comment?

All of Europe is enlightened

Sign...

Okay, so I should have qualified that statement. The point is that the U.S. is no more enlightened than most of Europe is and Europeans have developed without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

Hell, Europeans no longer have the death penalty, whereas the U.S. does. We can go back and forth as to whether Europe or the U.S. is more or less enlightened.

Get it? ...

"How do I remind you that one of the many things that the Founding Fathers railed against were corporations?"

Quote some of the passages you're thinking about. The modern corporation really didn't exist in 1800.

Dende: the best thing would be to read either The Federalist Papers or deTocqueville's Democracy in America if you want a period perspective. If you prefer a modern historian then read "Unequal Protection" by Thomm Hartman.

Here is a book review: http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/unequal_protection.htm

If you do decide to purchase books, please support OGM by buying through the Amazon link.

BigDaddyMalcontent, you made my day. Thank you.

Carlo il radicale con senso sensible

So, it seems to me that the way to reduce corporate influence in electoral politics is to reduce the power of corporations. One way to do this is to bring back the corporate charter. Prior to the Civil War, corporations were granted charters by the government, and the charter could be revoked at any time if the government discerned that the terms of the charter had been violated.

So you buy a fire insurance policy from Smiley Ltd. but when it's time to collect you discover that selling insurance wasn't in the corporate charter. You read the fine print of the contract, but you neglected to review the corporate charter filed in its Delaware office. Your insurance contract is a nullity, and the corporation is dissolved. The CEO doesn't have enough money to pay out the claims of all the other people in the same situation as you, or maybe he's moved to Bermuda. Good luck suing the former shareholders.

Before getting too enthusiastic about this idea I suggest you research why the corporate charter requirements were abandoned in the first place.

when Europeans had kings.

Oh JoAnn, I actually believe in monarchy. I have a Spanish passport. I love my King. Monarchy can work. It can also fail. I am proposing one for Afghanistan. I think it can work there. It works in Bhutan though it failed in Nepal. The most enlightened countries are largely monarchies: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain.

I think it important to examine the period called the Enlightenment. JoAnn, I would be happy to recommend any number of books. Start with this one. Thomas Paine and the Promise of America by Harvey Kaye. Easy to read, touches on the issues. Some Founding Fathers wanted to end slavery and for women to vote. They were just prevented from doing so by the South Carolina contingent. Ever see the musical 1776? Based on a true story.

Love you as always,

Charles

Another baseless accusation from Charles Lemos.

Look at his wife, Michelle. She wears the purse in the Obama bank account. She is a corporate lawyer, Norm would use a word beginning with a-, for Sidney-Austen LLP. Over a billion dollars in revenues. Sixth largest in the world.

Black is the New Big Blue. Her husbands rails against NAFTA, she spends her time figuring out how to ship your job to China. Read up on Michelle Obama. Look up Sidney-Austen LLP or TreeHouse International.

She may be pretty, but her ethics stink.

Monarchy can work. It can also fail. I am proposing one for Afghanistan.

Is this an episode of the twilight zone? Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you are a Hobbesian.

Was in not Thomas Paine that wrote, "Give me tyranny, or give me death."

Europeans have developed without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

Once again, Joann, you are cherry picking one tiny portion of the discussion for...for what I don't know exactly. Just to argue I guess. The point of Charles' post is that corporations wield too much power and that that power has been disastrous for democracy, just as Jefferson et al. predicted. Do you agree with that thesis or not? Sure, Jefferson kept slaves and it took 150 years for women to get the right to vote. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, but that doesn't render his pioneering work in physics worthless. I just don't get what your beef is.

Look up Sidney-Austen LLP or TreeHouse International.

Sidney-Austen LLP: She worked there straight out of Law school, but left at some point to join the mayors staff.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc.: A food supplier that she was paid 60K a year to be on the board of. It supplied walmart as a customer so she resigned in 2007.

No sign that either of these made anybody millions. Everybody with a big expensive law degree works at a corporate law firm for a few years to pay off debt, then the good ones leave and purse their real interests.

As for the Board of Treehouse. I am sure it isn't wonderful but it certainly is a step away from being on the actual board of Walmart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama#_note-womanbehind

So not a baseless accusation, but an enormous stretching of the truth.

Tell me Charles,you seem to be into conspiracy theories ,who do you think planned 9-11?

The point is that the U.S. is no more enlightened than most of Europe is and Europeans have developed without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

I sympathize with the main point you're making, Joann: that ancestor worship does not prove anything and is pretty thoughtless besides. But officially, Europe is not a good comparison: The U.S. went through slavery (slavery was banned much later here than in, say, France), and a longer civil rights struggle; Europe when through a serious of violent internal wars that killed millions, a genocide, totalitarian rule, and much else. Also: This argument doesn't have any force unless it presupposes that the U.S. had no influence on them. But Jefferson, Paine (officially British but granted honorary American citizenship and a residence in NY), and others were influential, both directly and as models, offering advice on democratic procedures and legislation the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. And, more generally, America really did serve as a model for democracy in other countries, and in the case of the Marshall Plan, instituted it directly itself.

As an aside: Women have pretty much always gotten screwed in most democracies--although please don't turn that into a reason to vote for HRC--earning voting rights in most Western countries only in the 20th C: Australia (1902), U.S. (1920), Great Britain (1928), France (1944)

BigDaddy said:

One of the arguments against campaign finance reform is that it would be a violation of the First Amendment. Despite the fact that this seems to run counter to what was intended by the First amendment, this is a compelling argument.

I sympathize entirely with your raising this issue, and somewhat with your corporations and "personhood" point. But I think the far-right wing "argument" you cite as worrisome yet "compelling" is actually not sound. A central normative presupposition of free speech is that my right to speak my mind does not interfere in the least with your right to do so. What it is in part supposed to protect is the entitlement (but not an obligation) of any citizen to the process of democratic decision making in the form "free", that is uncoerced, communication. (The same is true of democratic participation, which is further protected under the 1st amendment by the "assemblies" clause). But that normative standard is but exactly what gets violated if corporate funding manipulates and dominates democratic elections, because in a very real sense, if money is treated as "speech," and it controls the political process, then in a very real sense, corporations donating millions of dollars to manipulate elections really does prevent other people from exercising their right to (genuine rather than merely illusory) political participation and speech (in the form of a vote which gives "voice" to their political preferences).

Charles asked:

Now how did a community organizer who has never worked for major corporate firm and then has spent the last 12 years working in the Illinois State Legislature and the US Senate become a millionaire? Look into that question, and you will find another reason not to vote for Barack Obama.

As you've already pointed out, Charles, his wife did work for a large corporate law firm. Perhaps that is in part what you were intended to insinuate. As I've already pointed out, even if his wife were the most malicious person in the world--I actually think the opposite is true, but just suppose for a moment--it would not follow, in the least, that Obama is any better or any worse a candidate for president. It's guilt by association reasoning.

The immediate problem is not "rich" people: it is the coercive role some--not all--of them play--in what is supposed to be a democratic process.

A question: What practical measures would need to be taken to reign in or eliminate the influence of corporate money on democratic elections?

Obviously, the public funding of elections, would be one way. Perhaps there are others.

But any proposal we adopt, it seems to me an absolutely necessary first step in that direction is what precisely gets obstructed by corporate influence: government transparency and accountability.

Obama has worked on a lot of legislation in favor of this, although I'm sure it will all somehow be made out to make him look like a far-right-wing Republican, who is not worthy of our trust under any circumstances.