Please Kasz, your post assumes the people will be just as alert to politicians' actions as the corporations.  "All the corporate money in the world" won't make politicans stand by BP when they caused the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but if it's not making headlines ...

Owning politicians means corporations can do serious damage to our country (for short-term or special interest gain) and all they have to do is keep a majority of people in the dark about it.  Or shit, if they get stupid politicians (not rare), they can just buy off the next one when the first one gets run out on a rail.  (I'm sure you know the big companies spend on both sides.) 

I think you're the one who is looking at the movement through your own biased and seeing what you want to see ...

While there are people who are making statements along the lines of what you're claiming there are also claims being made by countless groups for countless causes which act as noise for any meaningful message from the movement. When you have socialist, anarchist, communist, pro-union, pot-legalization, anti-Semitic, student-debt forgiveness, and anti-corruption messages being delivered in an environment of squalor, drug abuse, and crime from people who seem to be playing parliament similar to the kids in Lord of the Flies it becomes difficult to see much of a serious point to the movement.

As I mentioned before, do your research.

Canadian based foundation, Adbusters, proposed the occupy movement based on the following:

- Corporate influence on democracy

- A growing disparity in wealth

- The absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis.

Some may want to take it to other levels, but those are the BASE meanings behind the movement.

(Yes, this is a repeated post, but it's interesting how it goes ignored in order to hold up the whole "nobody knows what they're protesting for" bubble)

What percentage of the protestors could actually communicate that as the origin and/or meaning behind the movement? If it is less than an overwhelming majority it can’t really be said to be the point of the movement. If the percentage is as low as I suspect it is (in the 1% to 5% range) it is just one of many messages being drowned out in the noise of the movement.

evidence plz

What percentage of people don't think there is a problem with how income distribution is happening in the country, or have concerns that the American dreram is loss?  Do you think a majority of people find it acceptable?  Beyond that, do a majority of people don't think there isn't corruption in Wall Street?

Like this poll: 6 in 10 want Washington to do something about the income inequality to address it:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/six-in-10-support-policies-addressing-income-inequality/

And Wall Street itself (and Washington) aren't polling favorably either:
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-us-public-disfavors-wall-street-washington-031956066.html

The movement had gotten stale in what it was doing.  The issue shifted from the economic issues to the right to camp out in public parks.  Camping out in public parks isn't what people care about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qaVvzTyMcls#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R2yYiULZ0hA

If that isn't playing parliament I don't know what is ...

As for "there is no clear message". There ARE clear messages, just there are also many other messages in there to. Here is a number of Occupy chants. See if you can detect a theme in these:
http://www.thinkslogans.com/slogans/slogans-for-a-cause/occupy-wall-street-slogans/

Anyone here say they can't see ANY message in there?

As for "We are the 99%", anyone think that the people chanting it give it their own particular meaning and some say it has to do with economics, while others think it has to do with hair color or weight (protesting Cartman being out of shape)?

And then there is the charge that Occupy is a bunch of Communists who hate people.  If the message is unclear, how can that charge be leveled against them?

Just because what is proposed as solutions is all over the map, doesn't mean what is being protested isn't.  Also, it doesn't mean there isn't an agreement with the consensus process and the use of general assemblies either.

Agree with bolded.  The issue is that (while that may be the intent of the movement put forth by those who conceptualized it) the idealogy of the movement has been bastardized to the point that the overall message is nebulous to the point of nonsensibility.  For the record, I agree with all three of the tenets listed from Adbusters (though not with views of adbusters itself).  However, the majority of the people in the movement have perverted those ideas to suit their needs. 

In fact, perhaps those in the 1% of the movement who actually do understand the original idealogy of the movement should start a new slogan...

"We are the 1% of the other 99%!"

As opposed to Lord of the Flies where the elect a chief.