The InterActivist
No replastering; the structure is rotten. -- GrafittoWe The Corporations
Courtney Corporation and Danny Democracy now "official"
You thought that Brad and Angie were a big deal - well, look out, people. This past Jan. 21, our very own matchmaker itself, the Supreme Court, decided to officially hitch corporate rule and state governance by ruling that corporations will now have the same rights as human beings and will therefore be able to spend their money on political campaigns WITHOUT LIMITATION.
What does this mean, exactly? Well, this means that from now on, corporations will be able to buy ads, publicly promote and (most importantly) financially support any candidate of their choice, which sort of makes…God, what's it called again - ooh, VOTING, irrelevant. By taking the democratic process of one person = one vote and throwing millions, even billions of dollars of influence into the game, we're about to enter a cluster fuck beyond even Hannibal Lecter's wildest imagination.
By deciding through its 5-4 vote to overturn 63 years of precedents and rule that money = speech and that corporations, before the law, are entitled to "speak" their minds by donating money to financial campaigns, we are essentially admitting to what everyone until this point has kept, at least slightly, under wraps. That money = importance and power, and that those without money are less important and will have less influence in this "democratic" system.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the following in his opinion this past Thursday:
"The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy. The Court properly rejects that theory, and I join its opinion in full."
This part right here is my favorite:
"The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer."
Now we're getting into direct corporate rule AND censorship! Yay! Can we have slaves back, too?
To further comment on just how detrimental this ruling is, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens said the following in his dissent:
"The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have “limited liability” for their owners and managers, “perpetual life,” separation of ownership and control, “and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets . . . that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their shareholders’ investments. Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been “effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society’s economic welfare”; they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. “‘[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,’” furthermore, “‘are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.’”
“‘They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas.'" "
But here, ladies and gents, is the kicker:
"It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
In a decision that has already been called "the most destructive legal concept of the modern era (corporate personhood)," issues of both class and wealth have, again, come to the forefront. By giving huge corporations monetary power over our political arena, our government is, quite literally, allowing monetary power to dictate the governance of our nation. The corporations are the large men in the shower, and the government has officially dropped the soap.
Not to worry, though - we aren't the only ones fired up. The big man himself, Mr. President, isn't too keen on the decision either. Earlier Saturday, in his weekly address to the nation, President Obama said that his teams are doing everything within their power to "…develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision."
In response to the ruling in general, Obama said the following:
"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don't. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act. I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest."
If this is something that concerns you, there is something you can do: visit www.movetoamend.org and find out more information on what happened Thursday, what it means for you, and what you can do to change things around. A petition is available to sign on the site itself.
Relevant Links:
Comments