Skip to main content

This is not a matter of mere ideology. Let us deal here in facts, in documented history. Corporations in America were not always as powerful as they are now. We had a revolution here in order to overthrow the king of England, George III. The point of this revolution was that we the people of the United States did not want a sovereign king dictating our affairs. In modern language, the king of England was a dictator.

In 1776 we the people of the United States became a sovereign body. We have never legally given up that powerful status. With force of violence the citizenry of this country seized the reins of power in the British colonies, throwing out the king of England and his chartered corporations that had ruled here with an iron fist.

Wait, back up a minute. Corporations? What corporations? Each colony formed by King George III in North America was a chartered corporation. That is how they were governed remotely from across the Atlantic Ocean. Governors of these colonies were appointed by the king. He vested in them a chip off the block of his sovereignty. Their job was not to be explorers, or to create communities of happy people. Their job was to make a profit for the monarch by turning natural resources into the coin of the realm. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The king also formed corporations to trade around the world: the Muskovy Company to trade with Russia (1555), the Levant Company to trade in Turkey (1581), the East India Company to trade in India and beyond (perhaps the greatest of them all, 1600), and the Hudson's Bay Company to trade in North America (1670).

In 1604, the settlement of St. John in Newfoundland became the first incorporated settlement in North America. In 1606 the Virginia Company of London was formed to claim and settle in the southern half of the East Coast. At the same time the Virginia Company of Plymouth was formed to settle the northern part of the coast. Then the Bermuda Islands were claimed by the London Company.

On and on, colonies were incorporated and settled under the British Crown. Ignoring Native American Indians, British corporations battled with French and Spanish companies for territory in the New World.

These chartered companies (corporations) had the king's authority to take over vast amounts of real estate, raise armies, rule the populace and most of all, extract resources. They were powerful by right of wielding the king's authority. But, the king didn't want them to be too powerful, lest they encroach upon his authority, endangering his very sovereignty.

To ensure that this didn't happen, the king at any time could simply revoke a corporation's chartered status. Being the king, he didn't need a reason, he could do this on a whim because he got his authority from God. Period. The mechanism created first by King Edward I was called quo warranto, Latin for “by what warrant?” (or right). Essentially the king was asking, “By what right or authority do you do this thing? I didn't grant you the authority under your charter to do this” (whatever it was that angered or seemed threatening to his royal person).

Development of the chartered corporation under U.S. law

Since the former British colonies had just fought a war to end corporate colonialism, the people of the newly United States had seized sovereignty for themselves. They were now in the position to charter corporations for specific purposes. Early corporations in the United States of America were strictly limited in their scope.

    Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

    Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

    Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

    Corporations were often terminated through the use of quo warranto if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

    Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed by the corporation, whether by themselves or by their employees.

    Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.


Let's say the state of New York granted a corporate charter for the purpose of building a bridge. The corporation was given a fixed period of time in which to accomplish its task, and then it automatically dissolved.

The corporation that was granted that charter couldn't decide instead to build a ferry dock. It couldn't buy a sailing ship or some cannons.

The corporation could have its charter revoked for threatening property holders into selling their land or committing other public harm, even if it was technically legal.

Owners of these corporations could be sent to jail for committing any criminal act in the name of the company even if they didn't do the deed personally, having instead delegated it to others.

And, perhaps most importantly, they couldn't meddle in the politics of the nation, a state or a municipality, or hold charitable organizations hostage by way of threatening to withhold contributions.

“Citizen authority clauses dictated rules for issuing stock, for shareholder voting, for obtaining corporate information, for paying dividends and keeping records. They limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. Citizens kept banks on particularly short leashes. Their charters were limited from three to ten years. Banks had to get legislative approval to increase their capital stock, or to merge. Some state laws required banks to make loans for local manufacturing, fishing, agriculture enterprises, and to the states themselves. Banks were forbidden to engage in trade.”1

That was then; this is now.

Quite a bit different than the way things are today, eh? How did it come to pass that corporations are now more powerful than nations?

We the citizens are the seat of sovereign power in America. Elected officials serve at our pleasure. All legal authority rests in our hands. While that is true in a technical sense, the fact is that as of January, 2010, all authority in the United States of America rests in the hands of multi-national corporations worth trillions of dollars.

Two years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission put the final nail in the coffin of American representative democracy. That was when the ruling on Supreme Court case Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission was decided. This ruling declared that corporations, as natural people, were guaranteed the right to donate money to political campaigns as an exercise of the First Amendment, the right to free speech.

How the U.S. Supreme Court has created this mess

The U.S. Supreme Court is the third branch of our government, coequal with the executive and the legislative branches. It gets the least attention. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president and approved by Congress. They serve for life, and can't be voted out of office. They wield vast power. There is no way for the people of the United States to undo their decisions, save by constitutional amendment or, over time, electing presidents who might possibly appoint enough justices with different viewpoints to overturn previous decisions.

A series of Supreme Court decisions has brought us to the point where our presidents, legislators, our media....our entire populace bows before the throne of dictatorial, undemocratic, entities that have perpetual life and more money than God. Following the Civil War, and well into the 20th century, appointed judges gave privilege after privilege to corporations. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

Here is the timeline for how some of these decisions brought us to where we are today.

    Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
    In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn.

       The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments were passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies." 2

       But, the people running the corporations kept up with legal battle after battle, challenging any encroachment upon their power. Meanwhile, they accrued vast amounts of capital and property thanks to government spending during the Civil War and building of the railroad lines. As industry grew, people left the countryside for jobs in cities.

       Company towns grew, and workers became fearful of unemployment. The barons of business bought newspapers to affect public opinion, thoroughly infiltrated the legislatures with money for votes, and raised private armies to put down strikes.

       This is when legislatures began to give corporations limited liability, so the owners would not be liable for losses and criminal activity. They were also given extended duration of their charters, so they wouldn't expire automatically any more. Citizen oversight of corporations diminished greatly.

    Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
    The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance, but this fateful case subsequently was cited as precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights (personhood).

       This decision included the constitutional rights of the 14th Amendment. This is critical, because although this amendment was written to guarantee that freed slaves couldn't be deprived of their private property, it broadly included corporations. It meant that they could no longer be summarily dissolved by the states in which they were chartered by means of quo warranto. In one sweeping stroke, it greatly reduced the power of sovereign citizens over corporations.

       "There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view, " Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas was to write sixty years later.

    Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893)
    A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment)

   Lochner v. New York (1905)
    States cannot interfere with "private contracts" between workers and corporation -- marks the ascension of "substantive due process"

    Liggett v. Lee (1933)
    Chain store taxes prohibited as violation of corporations' "due process" rights.

    Ross v. Bernhard (1970)
    7th Amendment right (jury trial) granted to corporations.

    U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply (1976)
    A corporation successfully claims 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

    Marshall v. Barlow (1978)
    The Court creates 4th Amendment protection for corporations -- federal inspectors must obtain a search warrant for a safety inspection on corporate property.

    First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
    Struck down a Massachusetts law that banned corporate spending to influence state ballot initiatives.

     Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010). In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overrules Austin and a century of federal legislative precedent to proclaim broad electioneering rights for corporations.

I have been characterized as spouting ideology, and ignoring facts. Well, here you go. This is all about recorded history, available at any library and on the Internet from credible sources. In some places where it is appropriate I have included footnotes.

Here are some more facts. It is easy to document the sway that these corporations have over our society.

    Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries.

    The corporate share of taxes paid has fallen from 33 percent in the 1940s to 15 percent in the 1990s. Individuals' share of taxes has risen from 44 to 73 percent.

    The World Trade Organization effectively gives corporations veto power over our U.S. environmental and labor laws, weakening our right to protect ourselves and our land by our legislation.

What we can do to change this

There are ways to roll back the corporate changeover in America. Two fundamental changes need to occur.

    1. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that corporations are not natural persons, and do not have the rights of natural persons under U.S. law.

    2. Public funding of elections.

There is a broadly based movement already afoot in America to amend our constitution, rolling back the status of corporations to that which they originally had early in our history. Cities and towns across the nation have begun to pass resolutions to this effect. So have Missoula, Montana and Boulder, Colorado.

Amending our constitution is difficult, but not impossible. There are two ways to do it. Either (a) by a vote of 2/3 of both the House of Representatives and of the Senate, followed by ratification of 3/4 of the various state legislatures; or (b) by the convening of a constitutional convention called for by 2/3 of the state legislatures, and then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

There are 27 amendments to the Constitution, 10 of which happened almost immediately after it was created. Those are the Bill of Rights. The other 17 took place as described above. It can be done, but there has to be a nearly unanimous popular voice on a matter for there to be a realistic chance of the U.S. Constitution being amended. Remember, it only took one year to change the voting age in America from 21 to 18.

As for public funding of elections, this is a way to remove the undue influence of the wealthiest citizens over the selection of political leaders who must represent all of the people. Of course, it is quite the Catch-22 when it comes to this problem. It would take robust action on the part of existing legislators to bring this about, the very people who have up to this point benefited from the status quo.

Again, it will take a popular upwelling of opinion to make for this much needed change. It is up to us as a people to make these things happen, no easy task when most folks seem to be convinced that our current system is the best possible one.

Please, give this much thought. Discuss it with your fellow citizens. Make your voice heard. Peaceful revolution is possible.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

President Abraham Lincoln

" Corporations have taken over the government and turned it against its own people."
Ralph Nader

One of the best summaries that I can recommend is Taking Care of Business:
Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation by Richard L. Grossman. It can be found at this link =>


1. Taking Care of Business By Richard L. Grossman and Frank I. Adams

2.> Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States, 2000.

 [originally in Dec. 14, 2011 Namekagon Notebook]

— 30 —

Originally posted to James Richard Bailey on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:31 AM PDT.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement and Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  James - a very well done history (11+ / 0-)

    Just a nit. You have a typo in your Citizens United case reference. The decision was 5-4.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:44:41 AM PDT

  •  Nice, Thom Hartmann is One Who Regularly (19+ / 0-)

    makes many of these points about the role and nature of corporations from colonial times, and their Court-driven evolution into the monsters they are today.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 10:34:53 AM PDT

  •  not sure how Dodge v Woolsley means what (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weck, VClib, misslegalbeagle

    you say it means.  in that case, the SCOTUS struck down a tax increase on a bank, on the grounds that it violated the contracts clause.

    •  but wait! There's more..... (0+ / 0-)
      Subsequent decisions of the Court, while attempting to distinguish Woolsey, severely confined the holding in that case by ruling that for a tax exemption to be valid it would have to be contained in a specific corporate charter and not in a general statute.

      The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

      by ozsea1 on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 11:06:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are no originalists when it comes to corps. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfdunphy, weck, walkshills

    Our SCTOUS has found all kind of stuff that isn't explicitly written in the Constitution or would have been understood by the framers/drafters or people in earlier times.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 03:23:21 PM PDT

  •  One more thing, I think (14+ / 0-)

    I think this misses the role of corporate money in our political process beyond just election-funding.  Think about the funding of the Tea Party, climate deniers, so-called "think tanks", the way the tobacco industry corrupted science, etc.  All of these influence our politics and possibly in a bigger way than just election funding.

    Here is what I think is needed. We need to get corporate money out of everything, not just out of funding elections. And there is a way to do that: We make a rule that corporate money can only be used for the purposes of running the corporation, period. And we enforce that very strictly. (That includes limiting what trade associations can do as well.)

    As Milton Friedman said, ANY use of corporate money for ANY other purpose is theft from shareholders. No charity, no think tanks, no "speaking fees," and of course no political donations.

    And then we wait a few years, and when all the smoke clears and we can start thinking for ourselves again, we start running our country for We, the People again.  

    Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: @dcjohnson

    by davej on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 03:59:49 PM PDT

  •  How about yanking the corporate charters... (11+ / 0-)

    of the corporations too big to prosecute.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 04:49:57 PM PDT

  •  Corporations used to get the death penalty (11+ / 0-)

    In the 19th century, your corporation needed to establish a charter showing how its operation would be a benefit to the community. If that charter was not honored, it could be hauled into the court and the corporation could receive a literal death penalty.

    Makes sense to me. If corporations are people, and people get the death penalty . . .

    They're not a serious party anymore. -Kos

    by thenekkidtruth on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:05:33 PM PDT

  •  Corporations are an artificial creation (9+ / 0-)

    of society.  The limited liability benefit in particular is a gift to corporations that pure libertarian philosophy cannot justify.  The only reason society should make rules that allow corporations to exist is if it benefits society.  The economy in general can no more exist without rules than a game of baseball could exist without rules.  The rules need to be made in a way that benefits all the players.

    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

    by Thutmose V on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:48:36 PM PDT

  •  Why is this not on the rec list? Too awakening? (4+ / 0-)
  •  history is always cool (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ichibon, walkshills, DvCM

    but especially when well written and sourced, thank you

    In the time that I have been given,
    I am what I am

    by duhban on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 07:03:09 PM PDT

  •  you may like this diary series: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ichibon, ozsea1, NoMoreLies, DvCM, stormicats

    It's my first draft manuscript of a book I published in 2011. I posted it as I wrote it.

  •  I do think the Move to Amend is not gonna work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Chapman


     2. Public funding of elections.
    should be the real goal.


       1. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that corporations are not natural persons, and do not have the rights of natural persons under U.S. law.
    is at best an irrelevancy, and at worst a positive harm. The Citizens United ruling was NOT based on corporate personhood, nor was it based on their "First Amendment rights". It was decided on the basis that the state does not have a compelling interest in the mere appearance of fraud or influence, but only on ACTUAL fraud or influence. Repealing personhood doesn't change that.

    And corporate personhood is what allows us to sue corporations and to hold them legally liable for their actions. Particularly since the very definition of a corporation holds that its officers are NOT personally liable for anything the corporation does.

    I'm not sure why repealing that is a good idea . . . .

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      I think there is too much of a focus on ending corporate personhood.  

      Corporations do function in many ways as persons, and as Lenny says, it allows us to sue them.

      Also, I think that eliminating all of the "human rights" that corporations share with us is a really bad idea.  For example, I don't think that most of us would want the government to be able to simply seize the property of a corporation without compensating the company (i.e. violating the fifth amendment).  Such a situation opens the door for organized crime.  Think about medical marijuana. The federal government and some states have been threatening to invalidate contracts with medical marijuana dispensaries because marijuana is still illegal on the federal level. They have also suggested coming down on banks that hold funds from dispensaries as assisting with criminal activity.  As many people on this blog have noted, such actions prevent MJ dispensaries from acting like normal businesses, require massive quantities of cash, make them a target of criminals, and attract criminals themselves. (Because if you can't count on the government to protect your profits, who you gonna call?)

      Now imagine that the government could do that with all corporations. Think of a prosecutor saying, "Sorry Moe's Bar, we're taking your barstools and your corporate charter. You don't get to be compensated and you don't get to defend yourself in court, because you're not a person!"

      Corporate personhood is what allows for large modern organizations to exist-- to be regulated and to function with transparency. That said, we definitely need to regulate them, but eliminating "personhood" is not the answer.

      To me, there are three solutions to the problem of corporate influence in elections.  First, as Lenny said, is public funding of elections.  

      Second, a re-assertion of the doctrine of  personal vs. commercial speech. The supreme court has ruled that the government has an increased ability to regulate speech for commercial purposes than speech for personal purposes.  This is why they can prohibit cigarette ads on television and require that "wheat" bread be 51% whole wheat even though technically even white bread is made from the wheat plant.  There are probably a great number of things we can do to regulate commercial speech.

      Third, and just as good public financing of elections would be a constitutional amendment that money is not speech.  Thus, an individual has the unrestricted right to stand on the street corner and proclaim her support for Ron Paul.  Sheldon Adelson, on the other hand, cannot spend unlimited amounts of money on advertisements for Newt Gingrich, either as himself or as any of the corporations he has undoubtedly created.  

      This third solution has the benefit of not simply protecting our elections, but reducing outside influence on all of our government. Public funding of elections wouldn't prevent massive ad buys every time a legislature tried to so something to protect the public. But giving congress the ability to regulate how much is spent on certain political advertisements might just allow the voice of "natural persons" (who are talking and writing as opposed to spending and advertising) to be heard.

      One man gathers what another man spills

      by John Chapman on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 11:36:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was just wondering the other day (0+ / 0-)

    when "brands" came into being. I'm guessing that during the founding if you wanted a beer, you went to a pub and asked for a beer, or an ale or stout or lager, perhaps a specific one that maybe the proprietor had a pet name for. But when did products begin to be sold with distinct brand names like Coke or Flexible Flyer or Brillo? Surely that doesn't go all the way back to the founding, and began not long after corporations began to assume their modern, larger than life and disembodied form. Also, logos, mottos and trademarks.

    We'd all be liars if we said we had no use for corporations, but there's just something unreal and unhealthy about the whole concept in how they relocate accountability outside the community and beyond its reach.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 09:09:17 PM PDT

  •  National charters for larger national (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and particularly multinational corps. State charters for state bound corps. only. Public good a key principle. Full liability for all criminal acts. Money spend only for their stated purpose.

    Blow up the state charters, most in the most secretive state in the union (Delaware). Start over. Very carefully.

    It is us or them...and we're losing badly.

    The truth is we are tortured by the truth.

    by walkshills on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 11:14:54 PM PDT

  •  Public funding has to come second (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DvCM, unfangus

    unless and until either Citizens United is reversed or the Constitution is amended to take away personhood from corporations, the current 5 judge majority on the Court will continue to strike down the effective provisions of any state's public funding laws.  We have already seen this with respect to both Arizona and Montana, have we not?

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 04:47:23 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, the Lincoln quote re: corporations (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is not his.

    It's one of those too good to be true errors in a history book that goes on to live forever.

    ----- GOP found drowned in Grover Norquist's bathtub.

    When it all goes wrong, hippies and engineers will save us. -- Reggie Watts

    by JimWilson on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 04:58:46 AM PDT

  •  The diary is very good (0+ / 0-)

    Few people are aware of the nasty history of corporations. There is much evil in the corporate construct. It thrives on the destruction of others.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 05:28:29 AM PDT

  •  Need language for this (0+ / 0-)

    Many Americans hear an attack on "corporations" as an attack on capitalism or free-market economies. Thom Hartmann himself points out that corporations can be as small as a single person, and millions incorporate for a large number of reasons. These tiny corporations aren't really the problem. When we talk about corporations taking over, we mean very large, publicly traded corporations. The kind that can fund elections, and that are required by law to put shareholders before all else. Is there a way to refer to them without making people think we're closet communists? "Megacorps," "Multinationals," or something?

    There is a difference between a responsible gun owner, and one that's gotten far.

    by BeerNotWar on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 09:55:22 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site