Congress, and then the states, should pass an Amendment to the US Constitution that sets up a separate status for Corporations as business organizations--not as Persons. Corporations cannot vote. They cannot be put in jail for breaking laws. They cannot serve in the military or in public office. Yet, they have the financial strength to overwhelm ordinary citizens when it comes to representation in government, in court and in our campaigns. We risk the erosion of our rights as individual citizens and the ultimate transformation of our government to a government not of the People, but of the Corporations. There is a significant amount of case law giving corporations a number of rights, and any amendment should be carefully written to keep what's good and eliminate the preferential treatment Corporations have over ordinary citizens that is bad. Members of Congress, please pass a Constitutional Amendment that clarifies that Corporations do not have all the rights that the People of the United States do, because they are not people and cannot fulfill all of the same responsibilities that Citizens of the United States must fulfill.

Nullification allows states to repeal federal laws. For example, a state could decide to repeal the portion of the Civil Rights Act dealing with private facilities. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has placed a number of model bills supporting this principle on its books.

The City Creek Mall claims Taubman owns the mall, but it was made with LDS money. The church is not meant to be a profitable entity, it is meant to help individuals to find Christianity, a hospital for the sick of soul, to build churches, their temples and promote charitable donations and work. Instead, Taubman has created a luxurious mall with member’s money (if not, where else did the money come from?). Even if members stop all of their donations, the church would remain wealthy for several decades. So why is the church in the business of building and renting real estate? Have the principles of the church changed? Have the prophet received a revelation to destroy the existing Salt Lake downtown economy affecting every small business in a 3 mile radius? Why has the church decided to impact businesses such as The Gateway Mall? Did you know The Gateway was created because of the 2002 Winter Olympic games and it is an icon of everything it stands for? Is the City Creek, who serves a small wealthy community, more important than an Olympic icon that brings all communities together regardless of color, sexual orientation, race, belief or religion? Did you know Salt Lake City was recommended by the Olympic committee to place another bid for the 2026 winter games? Could the City Creek affect the existing icons? If lost, would you miss any of the Olympic icons? Could that affect the Culture and traditions created back in 2002? Did you know that with exception of a few stores, the majority of the Small City Creek stores, 4000sqf and under, do not currently generate enough revenue to be profitable? Having asked all of these questions, why did the church decided to destabilize the downtown economy with such luxury when it teaches its members to live frugally and humbly? I propose a pledge to boycott the City Creek Mall permanently. The church built ZCMI, it failed, the church built the City Creek and it is affecting the jobs of thousands for no good reason. The church doesn't need the money, it collect donations from it's members. The City Creek will fail like ZCMI did, the signs are already out there. It is up to us to accelerate the process and protect our friends and family who depend on commerce City Creek has been destroying. Keep The LDS Church religious, let people be responsible for the downtown business.

I think it is disgusting that American companies would profit from such horrible conditions in factories out of the country. Shame on them!! let them feel it in their pocketbooks this Holiday season. Remember the Triangle Shirt Company 100 yrs. ago?

We nearly lost our farm in the 80's due to rising interest rates. I'd hate to see predatory lending affect my kids and grandkids.

Boycott the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Facebook is becoming a media institution and as such, should allow the members of the service to vote on any and all future Terms of Service. This will protect its users' privacy rights and allow them to actively participate in any changes that could directly or indirectly affect them.

Why Is the Obama FCC Plotting a Massive Giveaway to Rupert Murdoch? hat if I told you the Obama administration's first major post-election policy move was a big, fat gift for Rupert Murdoch? You might ask: The same Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News? The same Rupert Murdoch who scandalized England with phone-hacking, influence peddling and bribery? The same Rupert Murdoch who stays up late Saturday nights pondering things on Twitter like what to do about "the Jewish-owned press"? Crikey. Murdoch already owns the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox News Channel, Fox movie studios, 27 local TV stations and much, much more. Word is that Murdoch now covets the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune - the bankrupt-but-still-dominant newspapers (and websites) in the second- and third-largest media markets, where Murdoch already owns TV stations. Under current media ownership limits, he can't buy them. It's illegal ... unless the Federal Communications Commission changes the rules. But according to numerous reports, that's exactly what FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski plans to do. He's circulating an order at the FCC to lift the longstanding ban on one company owning both daily newspapers and TV stations in any of the 20 largest media markets. And he wants to wrap up this massive giveaway just in time for the holidays. Democracy Diversity Disaster If these changes go through, Murdoch could own the Los Angeles Times, two TV stations and up to eight radio stations in L.A. alone. And he's not the only potential beneficiary: These changes could mean more channels for Comcast-NBC, more deals for Disney and more stations for Sinclair. For anyone who actually cares about media diversity and democracy, the gutting of media ownership limits will be a complete disaster. These rules are one of the last barriers to local media monopolies. Without them, we will lose competing voices for local news. We will see the mainstream media get even more monotone, monochrome and monotonous. The FCC's own data show ownership of broadcast radio and television stations by women and minorities remains at abysmally low levels. Women own less than 7 percent of radio and TV stations; people of color control only 3.6 percent of TV stations and 8 percent of radio stations. More media consolidation will push out smaller owners - who are disproportionately women and people of color. The more concentrated local media get, the harder it will be for underrepresented groups to compete. That's why groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Center for Media Justice and the National Hispanic Media Coalition have spoken out against any further relaxation of ownership limits. Déjà Vu All Over Again Genachowski's proposal is essentially indistinguishable from the failed Bush administration policies that millions rallied against in 2003 and 2007. Ninety-nine percent of the public comments received by the FCC opposed lifting these rules when the Republicans tried to do it. Genachowski's proposal is nearly identical to the one the Senate voted to overturn with a bipartisan "resolution of disapproval" back in 2008. Among the senators who co-sponsored that rebuke to runaway media concentration were Joe Biden and Barack Obama. At the time, Obama blasted the FCC for having "failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism," saying the agency was in "no position to justify allowing for increased consolidation." Nothing has changed - except which party controls the White House. The federal courts have repeatedly - and as recently as 2011 - struck down these same rules, noting the FCC's failure to "consider the effect of its rules on minority and female ownership." The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to study the impact of any rule changes before changing the rules. The FCC has done nothing of the kind. When the Republicans were in power, they held at least seven public hearings on ownership rules in front of the full commission, where near-universal public opposition to these changes was evident. Yet Genachowski himself has participated in zero public hearings on media ownership. Same goes for the two newest commissioners, Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel and Republican Ajit Pai. The senior Republican, Robert McDowell, did attend hearings ... five years ago. Only Democrat Mignon Clyburn has attended a public hearing on media ownership during the Obama administration. Yet if Genachowski gets his way, according to reports, the FCC will vote on this major overhaul "on circulation" - that is, in secret and behind closed doors - with no public participation or accountability. It's shameful. Now You Do Something? Genachowski's behavior is inexplicable because the clearest and easiest path on media ownership was to do nothing. After losing in court, he could have punted the issue and waited for the next review in 2014, when the diversity research could have been finished and the industry trends might have been clearer. "Do nothing" is so ingrained at the FCC it could be the agency's motto. And yet the one time inaction is called for, Genachowski is making every effort to side with Murdoch against the masses. We can still stop this terrible plan from moving forward. The other members of the FCC can dissent and send this thing back to the drawing board. The dozens of senators who voted against this very policy less than five years ago can speak up again. The Obama administration can think about cross-examining Rupert Murdoch instead of appeasing him. None of that will happen unless millions of people make some noise. We should be breaking up these giant media conglomerates, not bolstering them. But right now we need to kill this policy for good - and remind the FCC that 99 percent of the public opposes media consolidation, no matter who's in the White House or the FCC chairman's seat.

Cities across the country where private corporations have assumed ownership or management of public systems have struggled with: Egregious rate hikes Water quality issues Environmental abuses Labor disputes and layoffs Neglected and underfunded infrastructure Loss of local control over an essential public service

Walmart,Best Buy, and Target are all major retailers that pay a poverty level wage. Consequently, we the American taxpayer, are required to subsidize the workers of these highly profitable corporations with food stamps,unemployment benefits, and health care such as Medicaid. It's time to end the entitlement subsidies to these corporations by having them pay a living wage. It's time to raise the minimum wage to at least $10/hr.

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United allowing for unlimited contributions to Super PACs has the potential to destroy the fabric of our American democracy. I am proposing that Congress format an amendment to the constitution that: 1) immediately nullifies Citizens United by 2) limiting the amount of money any individual or corporation may contribute to a political campaign 3) while requiring full public disclosure of the funds contributed, and finally 4) setting limits on the total amount spent on a political campaign for national office and 5) banning political television and radio commercials altogether. The effect of this amendment would be to limit the political campaign to issues and real debates between candidates bringing a sanity back to the political process in the United States.

Citizens should be concerned about the tactics being employed by foreclosing banks and the judicial preference shown to them at the expense of the middle class and lower income homeowners. I am in this position and there are almost no attorneys who will assist the financially challenged citizens and the state, local and federal governments offer no solutions or aid.