An interesting quote from a former Charlottesville resident and local businessman:

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Large corporations have routinely challenged the rule and will of citizens since this country’s birth. While small businesses are often seen as the benevolent side of capitalism, it isn’t just the size of multinationals and chain stores that define dangers to local economies. Many large associations and cooperatives take full advantage of economies of scale without doing proportional damage to individuals. The dangers presented by Wal-Mart and their ilk are a result of not only size but the peculiar way in which we have allowed corporations to devolve over the last several hundred years.

A thorough review of history reveals that most increases in corporate power have been the result of judicial decisions, not democratic processes. One of the most controversial and far-reaching Supreme Court rulings grew from the Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad dispute in 1886. The Court’s ruling essentially, classified a private corporation as a "natural person" under the 14th Amendment, and therefore entitled it to protection under the Bill of Rights. This ruling, combined with the unique ability of corporations to amass huge reservoirs of power, effectively overturned the original "one person, one vote" principle of America’s democracy. Most of us would have to admit our guiding principle is now closer to "one dollar, one vote".

After the American Revolution and before the 1886 ruling, corporations were under interesting restrictions that severely limited their power. Corporations could only be chartered for limited periods of time. Charters had to serve the public interest. Owners and managers were held personally liable for criminal wrongdoing. Corporations were not allowed to participate in the political process. One corporation could not buy another corporation or even own stock in another corporation. To ensure local control and input, a corporation's stockholders were required to be from the state where it did its business. Finally, corporations could be dissolved by Federal or State government at any time if a company violated its charter. Ironically, some progressives are looking back at these old rules to see if any can be reapplied today, so that citizen democracy can be restored to real people, instead of paper corporations.

While State and Federal law used to oversee corporate actions, recent advances by global corporate interests, such as the World Trade Organization, have turned the tables by instituting corporate rights to challenge democratically created national, state and local laws that stand in the way of profits. The WTO’s practices in this matter allow for closed tribunals governed by non-elected bureaucrats who are not subject to any conflict-of-interest regulations. Documents and briefs in these cases can be held as classified and not open to the public. Multinational corporations recently pushed to expand their power even further by proposing rules that would allow any corporation to directly sue any local, state, or national government.

Many groups are ranged against the continued corporate power-grab policies we face today. However, one of the best long-term strategies for restoring balance to democratic control of our country is to strengthen the small local business base. Luckily, this strategy is a positive re-enforcement that builds instead of destroys and is an open choice that all of us in the area can make. Shop local!