Will the Corporate Supremes now dance on democracy's corpse?

September 14, 2009 http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2009/1769

The Four Courtsmen of the Apocalypse are poised to finally bury American democracy in corporate money. The most powerful institution in human history---the global corporation---may soon take definitive possession of our electoral process.

It could happen very soon.


While America agonizes over health care, energy and war, Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas could make it all moot. They may now have the fifth Supreme Court vote they need to open the final floodgates on corporate spending in political campaigns.

In short, the Court may be poised to shred a century of judicial and legislative attempts to preserve even a semblance of restraint on how Big Money buys laws and legal decisions. The ensuing tsumani of corporate cash could turn every election hence into a series of virtual slave auctions, with victory guaranteed only to those candidates who most effectively grovel at the feet of the best-heeled lobbyists.

Not that this is so different from what we have now. The barriers against cash dominating our elections have already proven amazingly ineffective.

But a century ago, corporations were barred from directly contributing to political campaigns. The courts have upheld many of the key requirements.

Meanwhile the barons of Big Money have metastasized into all-powerful electoral juggernauts. The sum total of all these laws, right up to the recently riddled McCain-Feingold mandates, has been to force the corporations to hire a few extra lawyers, accountants and talk show bloviators to run interference for them.

Even that may be too much for the Court's corporate core. John Roberts's Supremes may now be fast-tracking a decision on CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, centered on a corporate-financed campaign film attacking Hillary Clinton. According to the Washington Post's account of oral arguments, "a majority of the court seemed impatient with an increasingly complicated federal scheme intended to curb the role of corporations, unions and special interest groups in elections."

Former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, who in 2000 "persuaded" the Court to stop a recount of votes in Florida and put George W. Bush in the White House, said such laws "smothered" the First Amendment and "criminalized" free speech.

The conservative Gang of Four has already been joined by Anthony Kennedy, the Court's swing voter, in signaling the likely overturn of two previous decisions upholding laws that ban direct corporate spending in elections.

When he was confirmed as the Court's Chief, Roberts promised Congress he would be loathe to overturn major legal precedents. But the signals of betrayal now seem so clear that Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold have issued personal statements warning Roberts that a radical assault on campaign finance laws would be considered a breach of faith with the Congress that confirmed him.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did assert during oral arguments that "a corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights."

But since the 1880s the courts have generally granted corporations human rights with no human responsibilities. Thom Hartmann (UNEQUAL PROTECTION) and Ted Nace (GANGS OF AMERICA) have shown with infuriating detail how corporate lawyers twisted the 14th Amendment, designed to protect the rights of freed slaves, into a legal weapon used to bludgeon the democratic process into submission.

Civil libertarians like Floyd Abrams and the American Civil Liberties Union have somehow argued that depriving these mega-conglomerations of cash and greed their "right" to buy elections might somehow impinge on the First Amendment.


1 | 2

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Will-the-Corporate-Supreme-by-Harvey-Wasserman-090914-375.html

says it right. As if these corporate giants don't wield enough power.

Right now we are watching the health care industry and the insurance industry hijack the health care reform debate. And if it isn't some spectacle I don't know what is.

recommended.

is about as cynical a decision that one could imagine.

A rightwingnut once told me that 'money is speech' citing the 1st Amendment. He said people and corporations have a right to 'express' their opinions by using their bank-accounts. I asked him if that could be a defense for murder, which is also an 'expression of an opinion'.

Killer: Murder? You can call it that, but the truth is I hated the guy and I was strongly expressing my opinion'. I imagine a clever lawyer could present a case for that and considering what people are willing to believe, it is at least worth a shot under our current interpretation of the 1st Amendment. I think you can make an argument for anything if you're warped enough. You could take this idea to ridiculous levels.

It makes a mockery of democracy. If you go along with this 'corporate personhood' idea maybe we all should become Corporations. Individual citizens have lost the right to equal representation as the country is now nothing more than a corporate state.

Thank you for this important post.