As just about every school kid knows, the American Revolution was fought over taxes. Specifically, over a lack of representation in the British Parliament (although given the quality of our public school system in this country, I wouldn't bet the farm on it). Great Britain was trying to recoup some of its money for coming to our aid in the French and Indian War a few years earlier. The tax was also a concession to the East India Company for lost profits as well. So, in effect, this was a corporate tax sanctioned by His Majesty, King George III's Government, to be levied on us colonialists. Therefore, one could argue that our revolution was waged against a corporation which was defended by the British Empire and foreign mercenaries (Hessians). Kind of reminds me of the Citizens United misruling a few years back by the no-so-supreme Supreme Court.
While the Citizens United ruling can make independent donations from it general treasury without the need to create a separate political action committee, it cannot donate directly to the candidate or the candidate's committee. It was also disclose its name if it sponsored any advertising on behalf of the particular campaign or "PAC". Previously, under the "McCain-Feingold" Act or "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2003 (BCRA for short), neither unions or corporations could make any direct contributions to campaigns, and as a result, had to set up a specific political action committee. The Supreme Court ruling also removed the cap for contributions while still restricting us ordinary voters. Obviously, this gave corporations an unfair advantage.
Gerrymandering, as most of us know, has made it all but impossible to remove an incumbent since the districts are drawn to the advantage of the office holder. There was a rather famous observation made about gerrymandering back in the 1980's which stated that there was a higher rate of turnover in the old Soviet Politburo than in the US Congress (I wonder, dear friends, who ended up with the better representation). In fact, did you know that the United States was alone of all democratic nations in allowing self-serving politicians to solely govern the redistricting process? It's just one more factor in why the US ranks in the second tier of the most personally "free" nation (as of 2015, the US ranked 20th in the world). Nevertheless, a few states have sought to create a fairer system by reassigning the redistricting process to non-partisan commission; states like California, Washington, and Arizona while Rhode Island and New Jersey have created ad hoc committees for that purpose. Meanwhile, the remaining states continue allow the state legislatures control of redistricting. How quaint.
Schools are for education and teachers are there to teach, not as overpaid babysitters. They should not have to deal with misbehavior and they should never be afraid of being in their students. If a student doesn't want to learn, great. Then let's create public work projects which requires nothing but a strong back and put them to work doing something constructive and away from gangs, drugs, and violence. Of course, there's always the military. They're always in need of "cannon fodder". We need less focus on sports and more on critical learning skills as well as civics. Not every job requires a college education. Let's re-emphasis technical, trade and vocational education which prepared students for the workplace, and there's nothing wrong with blue collar jobs. Blue collar men and women---union and non-union---built this nation from ground up.
History Channel: Tea Act
Thanks to the Roberts Court, Corporations Have More Constitutional Rights Than Actual People