I realize corruption is the law of the land in the two-card monty we call the two-party system, so perhaps this is just a formality. For “conservatives” reading this who think corporations are unfairly given a bad name, remember that these provisions include the over- and under-the-table lobbying efforts of unions as well. Corporations large and small, with all varieties of interests to protect via their conduits in government, can continue to feel safe in the knowledge that the Supreme Court not only supports the flooding of the political marketplace with corporate money, but upholds the act as nothing less than a constitutionally protected right.
Someone pinch me.
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
What part of the Constitution does the court see fit to back up their assertion? None other than the First Amendment, whose text I will type here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What about a corporation using their treasuries (read: stockpiles of money) to influence the outcomes of elections fits the text of the First Amendment, and is therefore protected by the Constitution? According to 5 of the Supreme Court Justices, freedom of speech equals freedom to finance. That’s right, money = speech:
“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.“
As I said, this is a mere formality at this point, although absurd on its face. First, money is not speech, and the founders most assuredly did not intend freedom of speech, press, and assembly to mean using the blessings of a free market to undermine the supposedly God-given right of the people to have their voices fairly and accurately reflected in their government through the only means possible in our semi-democratic system: public elections.
Second, Human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to Constitutional rights. Human beings are people, and in the words of our founders, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. God did not create the corporation. It is more or less a legal fiction asserting that a group of people with a common interest and compounded resources can be viewed upon in the eyes of the law as a person.
Hence, if spending money is speech, and a corporation is a person, then all persons do not have an identical right to free speech, constitutionally protected or not. I realize it is not the purpose of the Constitution to legislate equality, but rather liberty. It is not the business of the Constitution to grant equality of result, but rather equality of opportunity by way of the rights it enshrines. The obvious and rare exceptions notwithstanding, everyone has a mouth and a brain, and therefore has the absolute liberty to influence the political process through speech. By declaring what is essentially legal bribery as Constitutionally protected free speech, you must recognize that some have the right to “speak” a little louder and more often and to more important people than others. As George Orwell would say, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
The White House has issued a token repudiation, though the establishment couldn’t function as it currently does without the status quo, no matter how much Obama and his handlers claim to stand opposed to it. The last year is testament enough that Obama works for the very people he bemoans now have an increased ability to influence the political system (see bold):
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.
That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
Forceful response to this decision? Yes, I’m sure we can depend on Barack Obama to act swiftly on this important issue, just like he has so swiftly ended the war in Iraq and addressed the so-called health care emergency. I’m not holding my breath, Barry.
A timely quote from Abraham Lincoln:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war…”
He told you so.
Browse Timeline
2
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.
WeTheCorporations said this on
Jan 22 10 at
12:46 am
Why don’t we just give corporations the right to vote, or have Congressmen wear jump suits with corporate logos like Nascar drivers?
TOLEDO said this on
Jan 22 10 at
6:09 pm
