Photo: takomabibelot
Mainstream media’s coverage of last week’s Supreme Court decision regarding the influence of corporate America in political elections has been both thin and shallow… which is almost as frightening as the decision itself. Matador weighs in on this dangerous decision.
In case you missed it–which is entirely possible, given that mainstream media made a quick mention of it and moved on to the next big thing–the US Supreme Court handed down an alarming ruling in a critical case last week concerning the role of corporate America’s influence in American politics.
In brief, the justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that the US government can neither prohibit nor control corporations’ political spending in elections. In a rather astonishing leap of (il)logic, the majority decision stated that spending is a form of speech, and as such, spending can’t be controlled by the government because imposing controls would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Well, money does talk, but as Justice John Stephens expressed in his 90-page dissenting opinion, corporate speech (made possible by deep pockets) and the speech of individual Americans aren’t exactly equivalent.
With this in mind, we argue there are at least five reasons why last week’s Supreme Court decision means the end of democracy as we know it:
1. Because it’s an alarming precedent for illogical judicial analysis.
The judicial branch of federal government plays a crucial role in Americans’ lives.
It affects our education, our relationships, and our bodies.
It’s precisely because it’s so powerful that Americans depend upon its decisions to be rooted in the most thoughtful and careful analysis of the law possible.
And in this decision, such analysis was absent.
As MatadorTrips co-editor Hal Amen observed, “I don’t believe relaxing campaign spending restrictions has anything to do with free speech.”
The fact that the Court made a case otherwise sets an alarming precedent for this Court with respect to its ability to analyze legal matters logically.
2. Because it shows just how pervasive the corporatocracy is…
Corporate lobbyists already exert almost unimaginable influence over politics, law, and daily life in the United States.
Graphic: OpenSecrets
They determine everything from what kids eat for lunch in public school cafeterias to what warnings the EPA can compel manufacturers to attach to their products.
And corporate interests have long shaped our foreign policy, from Latin America to the Middle East.
Do we really need more of their meddling? Do they really need any more power?
3. and emboldens them even more.
If you thought the arrogance of corporate America had reached unsurpassable heights (see AIG and big banks’ bonus fiascos), then just wait. Corporate America just got a big blank check, signed by the Supreme Court.
4. Because it further exposes the hypocrisy of American “democracy” to the rest of the world.
As we continue our world tour for democracy, claiming that we’re going to liberate “oppressed” countries from their self-interested “dictators,” we might want to take a minute to reformulate our elevator speech, because the jig is up: the self-interested party is corporate America.
5. Because it means that the little guy just got even smaller.
It used to be that anyone who met the requirements of office could aspire to public service through politics. Exhibit A? Jimmy Carter.
This was a hallmark of American politics.
No longer.
Unless you’re a friend of big business, forget your political aspirations.
Community Connection:
What’s your opinion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205? Share your thoughts in the comments.
About the Author
More By This Author
- Female indigenous wrestler challenges barriers in Bolivia (3 comments)
- Photo Essay: The Coolest Tree Houses in the World (15 comments)
- 19 Reasons to Feel Hopeful about the World (7 comments)
Related Posts
14 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
So true, so sad.
The banksters own both parties (no surprise that both Bush & Obama’s biggest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs), owns congress & now it’s very clear, it owns the supreme court.
sigh.
↵ -
I just don’t see how money can be equated with speech. In order for campaign expenditures to be covered under the First Amendment, I should have access to the same financial resources as Goldman Sachs. In essence, Goldman Sachs has about 1 million times as many “units” of free speech rights as I do. The richer you are, the more rights you have. That’s sick.
↵ -
here’s the NRA’s reaction:
“NRA praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that removed unconstitutional restrictions on NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time. ”
NRA can “speak freely” anywhere anytime. They can blog, write letters, create email campaigns, make speeches.
I simply don’t get how campaign spending is equivalent to ’speech’ however.
To me it all goes back to the notion that a ‘corportation’ is given the same rights as a ‘person’.
I’d love to read some of Justice Stevens’ articulation of the difference between speaking and spending.
↵ -
I’ve always been of the opinion that, with respect to our system, Huxley’s prophecy is more accurate than Orwell’s. His seems more in tune with our corporatocratic, profit-driven, media-controlled, manipulative, mind-numbing, material-worshiping-induced and dependent lifestyle (I love hyphens…and parentheses, sorry I’m not sorry).
Sadly, this is nothing new, as Julie so pointed out. Corporations have been in control for a very long time. And I’m certain that many, if not most, of us are extremely disappointed and disgusted by this ruling.
But, we have hope. We have the advantage. It is us that these corporations depend on for their profit. Without our money, they can’t survive. One solution? Boycott those that don’t serve our needs and desires. It’s so easy for each person to do. Ride a bike instead of drive = less money for the oil companies = less campaign spending. Buy locally instead of at the giant chains = less money for the giant suppliers killing our world = less campaign spending. I know I’m preaching to the choir…
Also, go watch Food Inc., The Corporation, Religulous, King of Corn, Home (and I’m sure there are plenty of others), check out http://www.storyofstuff.com/, take what you will from these, but share resources!
Although this definitely proves that something is inherently wrong (read: evil) in the system, it does not prove we can’t keep changing the world. Eventually, nature will win – it’s up to us if we make it easy or hard on us.
↵ -
What I mean to say, simply, is we obviously have to adapt to a new system of democracy.
↵ -
Disgusting. Spending a form of “speech”? I guess this is what you can expect from a court stacked with right-wing Bushies!
↵ -
I completely frightening decision. The court that Bush stacked is starting to wreak havoc. I liked that Obama’s SOTU called the justices out to their grim faces.
↵ -
*&@^&^$ activist judges!
↵ -
I think the Supreme Court made a sound decision, it is indeed a matter of free speech and Americans need to learn about the great responsibility they have in “voting with their wallets”.
If someone does not agree with the behavior of corporation A, B or C, they should cut down on the size of that corporation by not purchasing any more of their products, this will certainly make corporations think twice about power abuse. Government regulations often cause much more problems then they solve, they have a global history of terrible management and corruption.Peace
↵ -
so do corporations
↵ -
I’m split on this. While I accept corporations as part of America, I do what I can to support the little guy in the little spending power that I have. That being said, I won’t inconvenience myself just to not buy at Wal-Mart. However, I do not like the power that the corporations have, but that is some what rooted in a form of jealousy. If I had that sort of power, I feel, I would use it to the best of my ability. However, I know that there are people who would disagree what my “best” is and what is actually “best” in their opinion.
Also, I am a Constitutionalist, but that requires a nearly objective interpretation of the Constitution. I want as few restrictions by the government on my personal life as possible, barring I interfere with another person’s rights.
So, my problem is this: while I may disagree with why the corporations are spending the money and how much they spend and yes it does make it harder for average people to make in the world of politics- it is equally hard for me to not support a decision that limits the government’s involvement in my life. With this standard in place, it also opens up the ability to individuals with money to spend as freely as they like, which if I remember correctly is very limited right now.
What option to I turn my shoulder too, and which do I accept into my embrace?
↵ -
Accept this “new right” and the responsibility that comes with it.
Corporations and people will now be able to sound off what their opinions on the country’s policies are in an increased voice (money talks), but lets not forget that more money backing a candidate only means more votes if the electorate is easily fooled and not aware of their rights and voting powers. People will now be able to “increase the volume” of the voice their opinions have by increasing the amount of resources (money) they chose to allocate to a certain candidate, the people will also have the added benefit of viewing how strongly some corporations will like to see certain candidates in power (by monitoring how much the corporations pay in), this in turn will empower the people to continue or not, to channel “pseudo energy” (money) to the corporations that pursue policies that are incompatible with each individuals beliefs.
Less regulation and more liberty will lead to a more transparent society IMO.
Peace
↵ -
Why do people think that Bush “stacked” the Supreme Court? I keep hearing this repeated.
George W. Bush appointed two of the nine Supreme Court Justices (Roberts and Alito). We might as well say that Clinton or Reagan stacked the court, with each of them having appointed two as well. If Obama gets to appoint one more, is he stacking the court?
↵
