Click here to go to the navigation. Click here to go to the content for this page.


DonateNow

Rethinking Resistance to Corporate Rule

Introduction
Bold Responses to Corporations Which Chronically Break the Law
Challenging Public/Corporate Partnerships
Communities Organizing to Defend Themselves Against Corporate Power
Prohibiting (or Defining) Corporate Involvement in Particular Industries
Revoking Corporate Charters
Rewriting State Corporate Codes
Challenging Corporate Claims to Constitutional Rights
From Corporate Ownership to Public Ownership
Educating Citizens About Our History and Beginning to Reclaim Our Culture and Our Language

• The American Independent Business Alliance (AMIBA) unites independent businesses to compete effectively against corporate chain stores. The first IBA was launched in Boulder and their work included proposing the ‘Community Vitality Act’ to the Boulder City Council. This legislation did not pass but is a model that helps demolish the myth of the "business interest" by supporting alliances among small businesses that are victims of corporate chain stores. To read the text of the proposed ordinance click here.

• A number of years ago, the town of Jay, Maine passed an ordinance which gave the town the power to license, monitor and enforce the same environmental regulations that the state Dept of Environmental Protection, and the federal E.P.A. do. In the town is a pulp & paper mill owned by International Paper company. The full text of the Jay Environmental Control and Improvement Ordinance is not online yet but may be obtained by contacting the Town of Jay, 99 Main Street, Jay, Maine 04239-1697, Tel: 207-897-6785.

• The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors has passed a law requiring all corporations doing business in the county to offer full benefits for same-sex partners. It has already withstood a court challenge. Minneapolis and about a half dozen other cities have passed similar ordinances. To read a PDF of the ordinance click here.

• Montana’s Supreme Court - in a landmark ruling on 20 October 1999 - held that the State cannot allow activities to continue that have the potential to poison the environment unless the state can show a "compelling state interest." (Montana Environmental Center vs. Dept. of Environmental Quality and Seven-Up Pete Joint Venture). The ruling came in an appeal by two environmental groups challenging an exemption allowing mining activities to degrade rivers. This was the first time that the court had tested a Montanan's constitutional "right to a clean and healthful environment" (Article II, Section 3 passed at their 1972 Constitutional Convention). The court stated, “Our constitution does not require that dead fish float on the surface of our state’s rivers and streams before its farsighted environmental protections can be invoked.” To read the ruling click here.

• The Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) in Minnesota launched the ‘New Rules Project’, which helps local communities to organize against the ravages of absentee corporate decision making by “identifying the rules that could close the gap between those who make the decisions and those who feel the impacts – new rules that could bring both authority and responsibility to the local level.”

Next Page


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


About DUHC
| What We Do | Hidden History | Rethinking Resistance
Upcoming Events
| Workshops | Bookstore | Written Materials | Links | Get Involved

Website Hosted by the Eggplant Active Media Workers Collective | Website Design by Heather Ault

Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County is a project of the California Center for Community Democracy