Supreme Court Votes to Allow Corporate Purchase of Election Results
59Boy, am I angry
We all know we should never write opinion and publish on the internet when we are angry. Tough. I'm so angry right now, I could. . . wait; it's passed. Phew.
Ok, then, here's the issue: the Supreme Court of the United States of America has just voted to overturn a law of over a hundred years' standing, and allow unrestricted corporate contributions to political advertising (they still can't donate directly to a party or federal campaign).
Now, you may well point out that presidential candidacy is won by whomever is able to raise the most money; it's a reasonable point to make, and perhaps therefore we should not be disturbed at the notion of corporate dollars being spent more freely.
You may well also point out that big business has always found a way round the law limiting corporate donations, by funneling the funds to individual contributions, but this new ruling opens the election process in the USA to unlimited spending on the candidate of your choice.
In his dissenting opinion (a document of some ninety pages), Justice John Paul Stevens (a justice of some ninety years of age) stated that the ruling will "cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."
When is Free Speech not Free?
. . . when you pay for it, of course.
The balance of "justice" is supposed to weigh issues -- their meaning, their legal implications, and the consequences they might well be supposed to produce; otherwise, there would be no reason to enact preventative measures such as, say, wearing seat belts. While some say that seat belts restrict movement and feel oppressive, the law imposing their use has been shown to be prudent.
Removing the restriction on corporate funding of party politics is neither prudent nor in the best interests of US citizens. Allowing big businesses their legal right to spend large sums of money on advertising campaigns and actually having the balls to call it "free speech" is essentially a contradiction of terms.
What the new ruling will do is sell "free speech" to the highest bidder, and if that happens to be a multinational corporation with overseas ownership? Consider election campaigns that already spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on denigrating candidates who have fought for their country (this one), sought to further human understanding and international relations, or who happen to have been born in Hawaii.
What will unlimited, if indirect, campaign funding produce?
The Other Side of the Campaign Coins. . .
Two small indications of prudence still remain, however. Corporations and unions still can not give the money directly to the campaigns or political parties, and political advertisements still are required to disclose their funding sources.
This seems small comfort; for indeed, allowing unlimited contributions empowers those who have money.
Conversely, it disenfranchises those who have little or none.
And if you think that big business is composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, then you should really stop watching the Disney Channel and pay attention to the news.
What do you think?
Should the Supreme Court have overturned the 1907 law restricting donations to political advertising?
See results without voting
Good hub. I'm with you on this one Teresa. This is the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott in 1857.
Makes me sick. Thanks for expressing it.
Well said, Teresa. This Supreme Court decision is a travesty that even tops the high court's annointment of George W. Bush as president back in 2000. The most potent point you make is that the ruling disenfranchises "persons" who don't have a lot of money (I'd say that includes nearly all of us.) I've written on this subject in one of my blogs. Thanks.
Free speech is free speech.
You forgot to talk about the unions. They have the rights. Why should one be allowed, and not the other?
Why is everyone calling the corporations the bad guy. This is all liberal leftest talks. Corporations pay a majority of the taxes, they provide a majority of jobs. They are largely owned by common people like us in form of stocks. Corporations have been getting an unjustified bad rap by the left. Wake up guys! Quit listening to the left franatics, and learn something and get your own opinions.
The left is trying to run the corporations right now which is part of the economic problem we are seeing.
Keep on hubbing!
Eovery - sorry - we do not have control of corporations, they have control of us. Do you really think you could pick up the phone and call a corp and get them to do something just because you own some of their stock?
Corporations exist to make profit. Giving an entity, that exists only to make money, has unlimited funding and does not die, the same rights as any individual is nothing but destructive to democracy.
Do you realize: a corporation now has the same rights you have - but I guarantee you don't have the same amount of money they do.
Free speech is now for sale speech.
Thanks for all your comments, guys.
Well said, WW!
I just read an excellent article by pgrundy showing clear statistics of how poverty is now widespread in the country. Yet, we keep taking away power from the regular people and giving it to only the rich.
http://dropoutnation.blogspot.com/2010/01/can-we-t
One of the key reasons that governments exist is to enforce some checks and balances on corporations. Even Adam Smith emphasized the importance of government in this regard.
I guess in the real-world Gordon Gekko wins.
Shibashake - It seems in the real world, the most ruthless and greedy win....
And too damn bad Pgrundy left!
Thank you for your hub, Teresa McGurk, and it was an eye opener.
Ms. McGurk, a good hub on a supreme decision made low and off radar, most likely missed it. Thanks for an informative start to a subject that I need to get educated about.
W.R.Wilson, I see you as a centralist progressive? I agree with your first reply, I just wish people would stop using the term "Democracy" in place of "Republic". While the imbalance of power in both houses and the oval office we have seen "Democracy" in action, we still remain a Republic and with the elections I hope to see a good balance of both parties return forcing them to work with one another, as it should be. http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/ a free and simple education on the American Form of Government as intended by the authors of the Constitution and bill of rights as well I suppose. The difference of that single word versus the other is paramount in my opinion.
50 - I'm not sure what label to put on me. I think the people, republican and democrat, have much more in common than the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
I am more of an anarchist of the old left wing variety (not a libertarian).
In any case, our government is rapidly turning into an oligarchy. Actually I'd say we've always been there but it's getting worse, and any semblance of control by the people (whether you want to call that democracy or a republic) is slipping away faster and faster.
Teresa McGurk, you have hit the nail on the head. Corporations are "persons" of statute. They are created by government and government is responsible for ensuring that they do not harm natural born persons, or the public at large. When governments abdicate their duty to take responsibility for their "children" and set boundaries, we become the victims of their greed.
Teresa, I'm not American so perhaps I should keep my two cents worth to myself, but it seems to me that the American government (and indeed, almost all other governments worldwide) have been owned by the big corporations for some time. This ruling just brings it out into the public arena for comment and debate but, ultimately, little or no impact on the powers-that-be (the corporations).
An excellent hub, keep them coming!
It's a good point: perhaps now there will be more outrage over lobbyists being funded by big business than there has been in the past.
Teresa, I could not believe that news. How can a corporation be the same as a person? Corporations are bunches of people with tons of money. What, do those people get to be 2 people? And the nonsense that regular people own the stock is misleading. 95% of stock is owned by 5% of the people. We are handing the power over to the corporations more and more. The people count for less every day.
Sometimes it seems we need to send all the politicians and the lawyers and lobbyist from K Street to Disneyland, lock the gates behind them and start over.
Great hub Teresa!
So, just to be sure, we live in an oligarchy now, right?
Corporations, government-- not much difference and neither has the best interest of "the people" at heart. Regular people need to get more involved. As a result of the political climate we face I know some young men who are doing just that in their small corners of our republic . A dialogue is good, but while we are still free to do so, folks, we need to get involved so we can impact the future.
Caught this while on vacation. The news didn't manage to spoil my escapade completely but I kept wondering if I'd heard right. You know, my not getting English in TV or some such... Sounded more like a plot to Tonight's Movie than actual news...
Just who is prostituting whom? Politicians and corporations can pay through the nose to buy someone`s vote but I could care less. As a free man I can discern for myself who is the pimp and who is being prostituted. The public would do well to not subject themselves to the " whoredoms" of those in authority over us.
Yet another well written hub Ms. McgGurk and I applaud your stance on this issue. While Mr. Hardy may vote his conscience as he so clearly points out, I would remind him and others that we gain our information about candidates from the media. If the corporate interests are flooding the airways with their propaganda, I have to ask; how will you know the truth? This ruling argues that corporations have the same right as individuals under the law of the first amendment. This is not just a bad ruling, it is the biggest step toward true Fascism that this country has ever faced, and it is no small wonder that it is at the hands of the Neocon appointed justices from the previous administration among other "wrong wing" administrations. The modern Republican Party may as well start using the swastika as a logo instead of the elephant. The party of Lincoln died with the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when all of the Nut Jobs in the south jumped ship from the Democratic Party and moved to the other side of the aisle.
Uninvited Writer Level 4 Commenter 2 years ago
I can imagine all American's are upset by this. I can't believe any Supreme Court would decide something like this was okay.