Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Packed Supreme Court Likely to Allow MORE Corporate Money in Politics

Posted by Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future at 2:12 PM on November 2, 2009.


Because corporations are people too.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!

 

The Supreme Court may decide as soon as tomorrow on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case involving a corporate-funded anti-Hillary smear ad. It is likely the conservative-dominated activist court will overturn precedent and rule in favor of removing restrictions on corporate spending in elections, with terrible consequences. The 5-4 ruling will say that large companies injecting vast sums to sway election results is “free speech.” Imagine, vocal cords on a Cayman Islands post office box!

Common Cause has a report out, titled, Corporate Democracy: Potential fallout from a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. "Lifting the ban on corporate political spending could unleash a flood of money into the political system and further diminish the public’s voice," the report says.

Really, imagine regular people trying to run for office while competing with the massive aggregated financial power of the biggest corporations. And imagine what will happen to anyone who dares to try to go up against their interests when they are able to openly spend any amount needed to get their way. I have come up with some examples of what to expect:

 

- The cost of running for office – any office – will increase exponentially. Even local campaigns will cost millions of dollars, as big corporations install their chosen representatives. Even locally powerful businesses will join the game, with car dealers paying to get local ordinances passed prohibiting new competitors, etc.

- A member of Congress considers voting against a special tax break for a certain very large corporation – or a law outlawing their competitors – which would bring the company $30 billion. The company lets that representative know they are prepared to spend a measly $200 million on a challenger in the next election, or for them if they vote the right way. How do you think that representative will vote -- and if they do the right thing how long do you expenct them to keep their seat?

- A huge oil company will certainly spend a measly $100 million to install a hand-picked board of county supervisors that will let them put a refinery in the middle of an organic farming or sensitive environmental region.

- Why wouldn't agribusiness spend a mere $1 billion installing legislators who vote to rescind food labeling requirements and food safety regulations?

- How long will it take before laws against monopolies, polluting the environment, etc. are repealed? Each election cycle will see corporate-backed candidates further consolidating the power and financial resources of a very few largest companies.

- Health insurance companies will pay Congress to pass a law ordering everyone to buy their product. Oh wait …

This is about the biggest corporations remaining dominant, using government power to channel tax dollars their way, while hampering competition -- especially from smaller, less powerful companies. The conservatives on the Court are there thanks to decades of spending by the biggest corporations that swayed public opinion in favor of big-corporation-supporting policies and politicians. We are seeing the results of these so-called “conservative” policies all around us as we lose our houses, raises, jobs and pensions while a select few grow ever richer.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this tomorrow it will be the big payoff, forever consolidating big-corporate control of the country and economy and effectively ending what was left of American democracy.

Digg!

Tagged as: supreme court, fec, campaign finance reform, money in elections


Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
Utah Lawmaker: I Don't Mind "the Gays," but "I Don’t Want ‘Em Stuffing it Down My Throat all the Time"
"Certainly not in my kid's face."
Post by Zaid Jilani. November 20, 2009.
Krauthammer Commits Terrorist Act on the Opinion Pages of the Washington Post
Terrorists terrorize -- it's what they do.
Post by Joshua Holland. November 20, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Excellent Post ... Be Forewarned!
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 2, 2009 2:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all too frightening ... Congress and The White House are all about "pay to play" already ...

If the Supreme Court passes this real governence will be all but hopeless ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the speed at which the decision was reached...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Nov 2, 2009 8:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
indicates that the gang of 5 will hand down the most sweeping possible decision and wipe out all the campaign finance laws...tomorrow (11/3) is shaping up to be a very happy day for the far right ..new jersey.. virginia.. NY-23.. and every election after that too..courtesy of the Go5...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Supreme Count is the best borrometer of the counter republican party-state.
Posted by: godsbreath64 on Nov 2, 2009 8:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pure party myopia calibrated their annointment, so there can be no surprise when they transparantly discard their constitutional oath for platform wanton.

If we must preserve a republic, we must only permit Federal judges to serve during good behaviour. Who snickered during the 13 year old's skivy search oral arguments earlier this year? There was supposedly more than one. The constitution defined a conclusion of their service. What lawful reason do they remain? Is it the consitutional approach to society or a textbook service before self party-state?

Their decisions are the target of a law abiding society, rather even an appearance of the source of one. How can Clarance Thomas delude himself he is NOT shaming his family for generations with each and every ruling?

For gosh and an america's sakes: go, already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SCOTUS...
Posted by: adp3d on Nov 3, 2009 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the real legacy of G.W. Bush!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Corporations Are People, Can They Be Tried For Murder Or Other Crimes In Criminal Court?
Posted by: Ishmael1 on Nov 3, 2009 1:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If SCOTUS uses this "fruit of the poisonous tree" from Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad to further declare corporations as "Sovereign Citizens", then those corporations should be governed by the same criminal statutes that we all have to live under. Therefore, Halliburton/KBR can be tried for Murder due to the deaths of soldiers from their shoddy electrical work. Blackwater can be tried for Murder for the deliberate deaths of Iraqi citizens. The people liable for criminal charges would run from the company's management team, employees and down to the shareholders themselves, since all are parts of the "corporate person".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forever
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 3, 2009 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And don't forget. Corporations will install US presidents to their liking who will keep the Supreme Court packed with pro-corporate thugs FOREVER!
(The corporations already do install the US presidents of their choice, basically, but this ruling will seal that situation forever.)

I have no hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Forever Posted by: Doubtom43
Put it to the Test
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 3, 2009 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations are people too.

Why can't this be put to the test? If a corporation is a person then why is a corporation that owns a subsidiary not a slave-owner. Doesn't the constitution now explicitly outlaw slavery?

For that matter, why is a publicly owned corporation not a slave? Is it OK for a group of persons to own another person?

This is not the only way that it is logically absurd to treat corporations as persons. It is also historically absurd, a result of misrepresentation in the head notes of the 1886 case, Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad.

For strict constructionists, which most of our current Supreme Court claims to be, it should be clear that the framers of the Constitution never, in their wildest dreams, intended corporations to be treated as ordinary persons with constitutionally guaranteed rights.

So why can't some clever progressive lawyer take absurdities like these to court and press a case to show why corporations cannot be treated as persons?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Court
Posted by: throck on Nov 3, 2009 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SCOTUS is an arm of the federal government and as such is mostly interested in gaining more power for itself. Most of the cases it chooses to hear are centered on the question "do we want more power or not?" and are consistently answered in the affirmative. Obama's appointees will likely be no better and probably worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Probably Worse?? Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Probably Worse?? Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» Bad does not mean Worse Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
If corporations are people, they are sociopaths.
Posted by: lclark on Nov 3, 2009 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The driving motivation for a corporation as a legal entity is to use all means to increase its profit.
It has no moral sensibility, nor sense of community. Individuals who promote the interests of corporations only simulate those attributes to advance the actual motivation of the corporation.
So a corporation is a sociopath.

Contribution to elections should only be from citizens eligible to vote, and while corporations may be recognized as legal entities, I've never seen one at a voting booth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree Posted by: lclark
Telling recent decision
Posted by: lclark on Nov 3, 2009 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The supreme court decided a few years back that it was fine for government to sieze property to turn over to a developer.

Previously common sense understood eminent domain to mean government could sieze property to allow for the creation of infastructure for the common good, like schools or roads.

With the decision of the courts that concept was "new thoughted" or "1984-ed" to mean the government could sieze property to increase its revenues.

We are landless serfs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, has anyone seen . . .
Posted by: notmom on Nov 3, 2009 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the must-be-invisible sign on the Supreme Court door that reads "Check your logic an common sense before entering"? Maybe it's only over the justices' private entrance, and that's why none of the rest of us have seen it.

As a Supreme-watcher, I've frequently been bewildered by the convoluted applications of what seem perfectly clear and unambiguous laws - and even precedents - but the very idea that a corporation has the "right" of free speech frightens me. What's next? The corporate "right" to vote? To hold office? Oh, wait ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So, has anyone seen . . . Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Washington the citizen; corporation the tyrant.
Posted by: lclark on Nov 3, 2009 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After the Revolutionary War, many people wanted to make Washington the 1st King of the United States. He had integrity and refused.

If such an offer was made to a corporation the reply would be to kneel down and kiss my (ring).

Washington was also opposed to political parties because he felt our elected representative would begin to behave as a entity seeking its own perpetuation and advantage rahter than the interests of citizens as a thoughtful individual holding the office might.

He was right. Those were unusally moral and intelligent people, and it had nothing to do with thier private sexual habits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is nothing wrong---
Posted by: Doubtom43 on Nov 3, 2009 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with this country of ours that a good revolution wouldn't cure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Money is free speech
Posted by: Doubtom43 on Nov 3, 2009 4:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's true that money is free speech, the it's equally true that some have more free speech than others. Does the argument have to proceed much beyond this point?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds like a Culture-Jammer moment in the making
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 4, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love the suggestions for prog attys to press cases to demonstrate the absurdities of corp. personhood and all that. Sounds like a great opp for culture-jamming to begin framing those absurdities into the public consciousness. The more humans we can get to begin thinking about this as repugnant the sooner corp. personhood will die.

Either that or the sooner rich people's furniture will begin to be thrown on their lawns every weekend... or sumpin'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps it’s time for another Revolution
Posted by: ronniejw on Nov 4, 2009 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps it’s time for another Revolution.

Ronnie Wright
World Change Cafe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]