Public Citizen helps you tell your Reps and Senators to sign on to a Constitutional amendment banning corporate "personhood." The reason is simple: corporations aren't people, they're things, and their money distorts our political process to the point where you can't even get a Constitutional amendment passed that almost seven in 10 Republicans think is a good idea. Almost 70% of Republicans, I say again using the italics hammer! Nine in 10 Americans want antibiotics out of feed animals, but the FDA just can't find the will to do it, because factory farms flood the process with money. Nine in 10 Americans want foods with genetically-modified ingredients to be labeled as such, but the USDA can't find the will to do that, either, because big ag corporations flood the process with money. Just about zero percent of Americans want corporations to cheat on their taxes, but Congress won't do anything about it, because corporations flood the process with money. When corporations aren't "people" any more, maybe we can stop them from trampling all over our will.
Meanwhile, Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray vetoed the city council's Large Retailer Accountability Act, which would have made big box stores pay D.C. workers a living wage. Just in case you were thinking one-party rule by Democrats means the people have more say than the corporations (a lesson we're constantly learning in our great city of Philadelphia as well). But D.C.'s City Council has the wherewithal to override the veto; let's see if they have the will. Daily Kos helps you tell five D.C. City Council folks on the fence to help override the Mayor's veto of the Large Retailer Accountability Act. Apparently, we only need one of those five for the override, if everyone else votes the way they voted when the bill was in Council. WalMart was looking to open six stores in the D.C. area, and now they say they might not, although they know as well as anyone else that sales have been a bit sluggish because folks just aren't spending as much money. Jesus Mary and Joseph how do they think folks get money to spend at Walmart?
Finally, if you missed last week's action alert demanding that the Senate pass a clean (so to speak) building efficiency bill rather than one with a whole slew of pro-pollution amendments attached to it, then the League of Conservation Voters provides another one. So what's happened to the bill in question (S. 1392) since late last week? Well, Congress.gov counts an astounding 85 amendments to this bill as of this writing; some are good, most are irrelevant (including many that would delay or repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act), and some are actually dangerous. A short list of the dangerous ones: S.A. 1853, from Sens. Barrasso, Enzi, and Flake, would prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon emissions; S.A. 1865, from Sens. Toomey, Coburn, Flake and Risch, would repeal the Clean Air Act's renewable energy standard; S.A. 1890, from Sen. Thune, would interfere with the EPA's efforts to stem tailpipe emissions, and S.A. 1913, from Sen. Paul, would end regulation of plumbing supplies (I shudder to think why!). Mention some, or all, of these when you talk to your Congressfolk.
Comments