I suspect I’m not the only author who has a relationship-of-sorts with my characters. Okay, this sounds kind of weird, perhaps tripping the edge of insanity or at least schizophrenia. But what I’m saying is those voices in my head that belong to my characters can get loud and hard to ignore.
Let’s just say that the most important character in “The Curse of Dead Horse Canyon: Cheyenne Spirits” died in the Prologue.
Why?
Because Bryan Reynolds’ passion caused his death, kicking off the story that drove his widow, Sara, and best friend, Charlie Littlewolf, to put their own lives at risk to avenge his murder and find out what he found.
What was Bryan’s passion that precipitated his demise and instilled such loyalty in the two most important people in his life?
Bryan had a big problem with corporations and crooked politicians running the country while the people he cared about suffered, such as homeless veterans and Native Americans living in Third World conditions.
When he discovered the Pearson Underground Residential Facility (PURF), built with government funds to protect lobbyists from an apocalypse, he went ballistic. He hacked a wealth of data related to PURF’s construction, but wanted tangible evidence. Thus, he and Sara went to its alleged location cross-country skiing, where they found what he was looking for.
Spotted by the PURF security team, they were ambushed. The accident killed Bryan and left Sara with no memory of the wreck, where they were, or why.
In the novel, Bryan’s hope was that public knowledge of this scandalous site would spark a rebellion. But upon reading more about why lobbyists are allowed to exist and have so much corporate influence on our freedoms, I realize more than ever what Bryan’s true backstory would comprise.
I never fully understood what kind of insanity allowed corporations to trample the rights of people. Now I do, thanks to the book, “Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became ‘People’ and How You Can Fight Back” by Thom Hartmann.
I have no doubts whatsoever that Bryan read this book and it’s what ignited his passion.
Do you understand how this came about? If not, let me explain. Of course it took an entire book to explain the situation in hypertension-promoting detail, but I’ll try and skip to the chase and provide the main points.
1. In 1886 there was a court case known as Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In the court records headnote, which is written by the court reporter and has no legal standing whatsoever, it was mentioned that the issue of corporate “personhood” was discussed, but wasn’t an issue in the final decision, which was a tax dispute. The court reporter noted that the justices agreed that corporate “personhood” was probably legitimate, but it was not the subject of the case nor was it officially ruled upon.
2. Originally, people were referred to as “natural persons” and corporations, churches, and the like were “artificial persons” who were subject to the laws written by “natural persons” who controlled, regulated, and chartered them.
3. The 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to grant rights to the freed slaves. One of the people who composed it goofed (though some believe and evidence supports that it was purposeful) and referred only to “persons,” which opened it up to the potential that it applied to both “natural” and “artificial” persons.
4. Since the 14th Amendment was written specifically for “natural” persons, it’s clearly a huge stretch to include corporations and other “artificial” persons in the statement. However, lawyers will be lawyers, and judges, who are usually former lawyers or at least have similar thought processes, will beat a statement to death with supposed, albeit ill-conceived, logic, until it means what they want it to mean–especially if there’s something to be gained.
5. Thus, in subsequent cases, the headnote was referenced, which inappropriately elevated it to the status of a “precedent,” and thus an influence on future trials–even though corporate “personhood” was never decided as part of an official ruling by the Supreme Court.
Corporate personhood is based on sloppy litigation research coupled with judicial shenanigans colored by political and financial interests.
It was never ruled upon officially by the Supreme Court.
Let that sink in.
Corporate political campaign contributions became acceptable in 2010 in the case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Again, based on legal precedents and no official interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s application to corporations, the way was opened up for corporations to donate as much money and resources as they wanted to political parties and their candidates based on their 1st Amendment right to “Free Speech.”
Also note that the courts have allowed corporations to lie to the public, also based on their right to “Free Speech.”
What happened to truth in advertising? It was struck down as a violation of “free speech.”
Give me a break. In my world, a lie is a lie and deliberately deceiving the public should not be allowed. What have we become that this is okay?
Corporations exploit their “personhood” rights by using the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to place them above the rights of “natural persons” and any laws previously put in place to control them. They use the 1st Amendment to buy the government and lie to the public. They use the 4th Amendment, which assures the right to privacy, to avoid the EPA, OSHA, and other government regulatory agency’s inspections related to environmental and workplace safety issues. They use the 14th Amendment assuring equal rights to squash individuals and local governments and jurisdictions that attempt to institute any laws or regulations to control them that don’t apply to the public or small businesses in general.
This is why corporations get billions of dollars in tax breaks as legislative favors from those they helped elect, the funding gaps they create dumped upon small businesses and individuals to fill the gap. Is it any wonder that heartless, soulless corporations and their CEOs continue to amass unheard of fortunes while the once strong middle class is reduced to shambles?
This is why Bryan was pissed.
And so am I.
And I’m sure our Founding Fathers are likewise beyond disappointed in what our country has become.
The rebellion at the Bostom Tea Party was against this very situation!
The East India Company was in cahoots with the British Crown and got considerable tax breaks, which resulted in unfair competition that was driving small businesses in the colonies out of business. Sound familiar? How ironic, that as the much-repeated cliche declares, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
And another factoid that further illuminates what the government has become, consider that corporations got personhood BEFORE WOMEN DID and thus considered eligible to vote!
It is time to undo this horrific transgression. And while we’re at it, let’s also consider how and why this travesty occurred. No one elected the Supreme Court. They make decisions that affect we, the people, who have no recourse when they promote blatant corporatism or other laws with which the majority disagree.
It seems to me that Congress should be entitled to overrule such decisions with a 2/3 vote as they can a presidential veto.
This country was supposed to have a balance of powers, but they are currently skewed.
Changing the Constitution is purposely not simple. However, the world is not the same as when it was written. To amend it requires support by 2/3 of Congress. The other option is a Convention of States, which requires the official request by a minimum of 34 states’ legislatures.
It’s time.
I cannot believe this is what the Founding Fathers intended.
You can pick up a copy of Hartmann’s book on Amazon here.
The following website links are for organizations trying to do something about this situation. Check them out for more information and specifics about what you can do.
www.movetoamend.org – Focused on cutting out corporations from human rights.
www.celdf.org – Excellent site that promotes Mother Nature’s “rights” as fundamental.
This video explains what Montana is attempting to do about the situation. It would at least stop corporate contributions to political candidates.
Leave your thoughts on this issue in the comments below and feel free to share.
