Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Time to Rein in Out-of-Control Corporate Influences on Our Democracy
Thursday's 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations.
With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars. Without approval from their shareholders, corporations can reward or intimidate people running for office at the local, state, and national levels.
Much of this 183 page opinion requires readers to enter into a fantasy world and accept the twisted logic of Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Imagine the majority saying the "Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity."
Perhaps Justice Kennedy didn't hear that the financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report titled: "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America" (See: WallStreetWatch.org).
The Center for Responsive Politics reported that last year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $144 million to influence Congress and state legislatures.
The Center also reported big lobbying expenditures by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) which spent $26 million in 2009. Drug companies like Pfizer, Amgen and Eli Lilly also poured tens of millions of dollars into federal lobbying in 2009. The health insurance industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) also spent several million lobbying Congress. No wonder Single Payer Health insurance - supported by the majority of people, doctors, and nurses - isn't moving in Congress.
Energy companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron are also big spenders. No wonder we have a national energy policy that is pro-fossil fuel and that does little to advance renewable energy (See: OpenSecrets.Org).
No wonder we have the best Congress money can buy.
I suppose Justice Kennedy thinks corporations that overwhelm members of Congress with campaign contributions need to have still more influence in the electoral arena. Spending millions to lobby Congress and making substantial PAC contributions just isn't enough for a majority of the Supreme Court. The dictate by the five activist Justices was too much for even Republican Senator John McCain, who commented that he was troubled by their "extreme naivete."
There is a glimmer of hope and a touch of reality in yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately it is the powerful 90 page dissent in this case by Justice Stevens joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Stevens recognizes the power corporations wield in our political economy. Justice Stevens finds it "absurd to think that the First Amendment prohibits legislatures from taking into account the corporate identity of a sponsor of electoral advocacy." He flatly declares that, "The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation."
He notes that the, Framers of our Constitution "had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind." Right he is, for the words "corporation" or "company" do not exist in our Constitution.
Justice Stevens concludes his dissent as follows:
"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
Indeed, this corporatist, anti-voter majority decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a simple Constitutional amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is time to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow "King Corporation" and restore the sovereignty of "We the People"! Remember that corporations, chartered by the state, are our servants, not our masters.
Legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Representative John Larson (D-CT) would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions of more than $100.
It is also time for shareholder resolutions, company by company, directing the corporate boards of directors to pledge not to use company money to directly favor or oppose candidates for public office.
If you want to join the efforts to rollback the corporate concessions the Supreme Court made yesterday, visit Citizen.Org and freespeechforpeople.org.
- Posted in
99 Comments so far
Show AllSCOTUS blog provides comprehensive roundup, analysis, and salient links to briefs, news posting, etc
http://www.scotusblog.com/
Great site but you will need a pdf reader. A good free one is available from Abobe but I like the Foxit Reader at download.com.
Gary
>>"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."<<
Judge Stevens nailed it. It is against common sense -- and against the spirit of the Constitution -- that SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to be protecting.
This decision means the corporacracy has the overt power to fix elections even more so than before (assuming they aren't already cooking the books with electronic voting machines). Means small groups of the people will find themselves drowned out by the power of money in the hands of venal, and inherently STUPID (as in self-destructive) corporations.
You cannot put a corporation in jail and now you cannot even limit its influence over voting.
So, all hail the all-powerful corporation!
Gary
Now "Free Speech" American style looks like this:
$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$$ $$$$$ $$ $$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$ $$$$ $$$$$
$$$. $$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$ $$ $$$ $$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$ $$ $$$ $$$$$ $$ $$$$$ $$
$$$ $$$$$ $$. $$$ $$$$$ $$$ $ $$$$$$$ $$ $$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$!
$$hhh, they'll hear you
The time to staunchly resist the corporatist take-over of our government was the day Ronald Reagan took office. Now, thirty years later, we are watching the final moves in a class war waged against 98-99% of us by the other 1-2%. Each of these moves pushes us ever farther from--not just equity--but from justice. "They" are now removing the last constraints against totalitarianism. Each of these moves makes it that much harder for us to fight back within the system. I, for one, do not think it is possible to fight back within the system, so our response will have to be "in the streets." Beware, however, because the executive branch is now empowered to declare martial law for just about any reason, there is no habeas corpus, private armies roam the land (with Xe driven by Christian fundamentalism as well), and Obama will do what he is told. (Yes, folks, if he's not one of "them" yet, he surely aspires to be.)
Bottom line: very soon we will find not just that we are on our own, but also that to make it on our own we will need solidarity against "them." Are we able? Are we ready? Are we willing?
I'll load while you shoot (my eyes ain't what they used to be).
Gary
Okay, but could we at least try some non-violent mass disruption first? Imagine a week-long national strike combined with a boycott of both mass media and mass consumption. Everyone stock up on food for the week and avoid buying anything--just meet in public places, share food, music, poetry, art, performance art--and a vision for a renewed future free from tyranny. If we could but ignore "them" for a week, they would shit their pants!
P.S. My eyes aren't what they used to be, either!
Love it. Let's do. MLK's International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment springs to mind.
I honestly believe an organized, mass strike and boycott would announce a new beginning that would so motivate people we could turn the tide (though it's a long way back to the pre-neocon days...). It worked in Bolivia. How does one induce the idea in enough people and generate enough momentum to make it happen? I've never been an organizer (time to start?).
Social networking for a start, and places like here. I am not a regular poster, but a regular reader and I know there are a battery of people itching to do things, who post nearly everyday. A date should be proposed and then shared. Let the networks carry the message, get other progressive groups involved. It's all about the word. I especially like that your idea is positive and creative, a renaissance rather than hate.
I would be happy to participate but even this weak proposal will never come to pass. Your ideas lack support from the VAST majority of Americans who are all too happy watching the next American Idol or episode of Lost.
Yes, the inertia seems overwhelming; the proposal, as you say, "weak." The average U.S. citizen is unaccustomed to acting as a citizen, having accepted demotion to "consumer" status. So things will probably get worse before they get better but, at some point, so many people will be out of work or the dollar will crash or some other shock will occur to induce some kind of critical mass. In other words, if we don't take to the streets volutarily, we will eventually be put on the streets involuntarily (those who have not landed there already).
I'm happy that you'll be happy to participate when the time comes.
I suspect the best thing to do is withdraw participation and let this thing spiral into the abyss. We are so thoroughly defeated at this point, any effort to combat this fascism just prolongs our agony.
I'll participate alright. In fact, I have been thinking I'll likely spend my retirement in prison.
The abyss yawns before us all, but consumers are the golden goose of a consumer economy. We could get their attention by withholding spending.
I hope you and I don't end up in prison. I hope even more fervently that we don't end up "disappeared"!
(Yikes! Look at the time! Gotta sign off and go! Thanks to everyone for the feedback and thoughts. I'm not setting these ideas aside. Can a few bloggers start something this big?)
Later Eddie. I agree about cutting them off at the cash register. I watch every dollar I spend these days and to do it properly requires a good amount of effort.
There were some very important facts brought to light by Bob Herbert's 1/22 column that for some reason didn't get posted to CD despite its important content and message. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23herbert.html?ref=opinion
"From 2000 to 2008, the number of poor people in the U.S. grew by 5.2 million, reaching nearly 40 million. That represented an increase of 15.4 percent in the poor population, which was more than twice the increase in the population as a whole during that period....
"A great deal of that bleeding is in the suburbs. The study, compiled by the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, said, “Suburbs gained more than 2.5 million poor individuals, accounting for almost half of the total increase in the nation’s poor population since 2000.”
"Democrats in search of clues as to why voters are unhappy may want to take a look at the report. In 2008, a startling 91.6 million people — more than 30 percent of the entire U.S. population — fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, which is a meager $21,834 for a family of four....
"The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston put the matter in stark perspective after analyzing the employment challenges facing young people in Chicago: “Labor market conditions for 16-19 and 20-24-year-olds in the city of Chicago in 2009 are the equivalent of a Great Depression-era, especially for young black men.”"
There are millions of people who are NOT watching TV, but worrying about how they are going to fulfill their family's needs. These people would constitute the core of any movement going forward.
Thanks!
But they DID post the article:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/23-7
Gary
"Times of general calamity and confusion create great minds. The purest ore is produced from the hottest furnace, and the brightest thunderbolt is elicited from the darkest storms."
-- Charles Caleb Colton
I don't know. I'm not saying it would necessarily be a big deal or even if we are the right people, but I think many, many people want to do something positive and feel empowered. Obama, as disappointing as he is (I didn't believe his rhetoric and didn't vote for him), tapped into that desire. It is there.
There is some sort of ill-defined desire for change. I don't see anything concrete in this area. You look at Obama and he has turned into the exact opposite of what people were anticipating. He really is just another imperialist, corporate fascist lackey. These people who voted for him, myself included, have come to the conclusion that there really aren't any political choices in America. I don't intend to vote ever again in a US election. It is a charade at this point.
What even smacks worse is the state of the radical left wing in America today. Nothing more than milquetoast cowards. I guess if they aren't staring a draft in the face, it isn't worth fighting for. Well, the corporate fascists took that one off the table with their mercenary armies, now what?
I suspect the only thing that would raise their eyebrows would be a campaign of mass corporate property destruction and vandalism. Money is the only thing these fascists understand.
Given the flabby state of our nation, such a campaign will never happen. Things will need to get much worse.
Now you're talking. A week long boycott does nothing. You will just buy the same stuff the week before or after, ie, no change to the bottom line. Only a full time boycott of the corporations would damage their spreadsheets.
Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First! wrote a book, "Confessions of an Eco-warrior." The same strategies and tactics can be applied here. My suggestion is to target the media first. The media brought the hatred into people's living rooms and created the tea baggers who have more in common with people around here than is acknowledged.
While I'm here;
It is surprising at the venom spewed at Nader. People should be encouraging him to unite all the disenfranchised.
>>It is surprising at the venom spewed at Nader. People should be encouraging him to unite all the disenfranchised.
Why should you be surprised. He holds millions in stock. For someone whose reputation is based on taking on the corptocracy, that's about as hypocritical as it gets. He represents the old failed school that you can play nice with these guys while working within their structure. Nothing is further from the truth and these glaring breakdowns in the system are proof of that fact. I personally have had enough of Nader and his "stockholder" solutions.
You gotta love a progressive site that purges any post that doesn't toe the Nader progressive party line.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
This is the second post by someone referring to themselves as "Lefty" or "luckylefty" on this site in two days that openly advocates violence. This "Lefty" or "luckylefty" person could be a Fed or even a Pentagon agitator/infiltrator trying to incite violence as justification for "terrorist" arrests (because our war/surveillance machine has to waste all that tax-payer money on something to justify their cushy government-benefitted jobs). When you see these likely government plants advocating violence note their name and the type of language they use. They either directly or obliquely encourage others to resort to violence but don't have the political ire to directly call for it themselves.
Yep, it's always the same guys (Poet, luckylefty and lefty - others?). The moderators and readers need to stay on top of this as these cockroaches will scatter to other accounts now that they've been spotted. All this stuff reeks of that Cass Sunstein idea of provoking the left into acts/statements that can be used to attack/discredit them:
http://www.americanbuddhist.net/your-government-appointees-work-cass-sunstein-seeks-“cognitive”-provocateurs
CommonDreams has become a clearinghouse for progressive criticism of Obama and it's becoming evident that the floundering administration is trying to find an angle to attack it. Sites like DailyKos now look pathetic as the Democrats have been exposed for even the slowest to see as tools of oligarchy, so the profile of truth-telling sites (FireDogLake, TruthDig, CD) is rising.
We can give it a try -- but just how many of us will still have a job if we just stay home for a week? Unless most of us do so -- and I don't see that happening alas. If you mean just don't buy anything for a week and still work, that might work, though I love the notion of the boss finding an empty office instead of busy drones.
Sorry about your eyes, but just in case I know an ex-Marine sniper with 20/10 vision...
Gary
People with jobs that include "sick leave" could call in sick, though we may need a number of conscientious doctors to write sick notes all week long. Others--or ANY who are afraid of losing their jobs--might need convincing that their jobs hang by threads anyway. Most of my peers are still hanging on for dear life, so I suspect you are right--no one will risk his or her job, especially if they have dependents.
Maybe a one-day national strike at the end of a week-long consumer boycott? Pain to corporations with a big punctuation mark at the end?
The sit-down strike is an option for those that must show-up to work: Show up on time, clock-in, sit down, and do nothing.
The whole idea, which some posters seem to miss, is to demonstrate not merely to corporations the disgust the people has for this mess, but Washington and state legislators as well.
I like the idea of a general strike of one day (with mass demonstrations natch) after a week's boycott.
Gary
An outright boycott is difficult given the Corporations control so much of the nations "Goods". Ie the Corporations all but control the food supply and it really not possible "Not to eat".
What might be needed is a targetted boycott. This where a SINGLE firm targetted in various industries. The firm targetted not because it worse then the others but simply because its name pulled out of a hat.
So no oil gasoline purchases from ANY exxon outlet. Shell and Chevron do ok, but EXXON scrambles.
No purchases from ANY wal Mart.
Have each boycott last a month then refresh the targets. The way business works with "Just in time delivery" and the like, this will cause a tremendous disruption without necessarily seeing them lay more people off from their jobs.
I tried about 10 years ago to get a boycott of Exxon, but to no avail. A targeted boycott may work if you could get millions of people on board.
No -- we need much more sophisticated ways to demonstrate --
We should have all been wearing MEDICARE FOR ALL - EVERYONE IN, NO
ONE OUT buttons, for instance, over the last year!
Turning lights out at scheduled times -- pulling the car over for 10 mins.
at scheduled times -- and other similar ways would be much more effective.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
I find the Right's response to this whole SCOTUS ruling defies logic. These are the people out in the streets campaigning for their rights and government minimalism. In fact, it seems from their rhetoric that they see all government as evil. I would say that corporate power in government is what makes government so intrusive and unresponsive.
As we heard over and over from our government leaders about Wall Street, "we can't blame them, after all, their goal is to make money." Okay... so since they have no conscience that puts them above all law and all ethics...? It certainly doesn't make them the same species as a person, unless of course, your view of people is that they are all sociopaths...
Corporations don't go to jail for breaking the law, like citizens do. Instead, in the example of the banking crisis, they get to whip up a firestorm in the media that indebted the taxpayers to the tune of 11 trillion dollars in loans and guarantees. That is not because of a strong government (whose job it is by the way to make it's citizens accountable to the law)... rather it is a lack of government power. But the Right wants to allow the corporations more power to control our government, whose sole desire is to control the population and deregulate their business?
The "little guy" on the right should watch out. Corporate totalitarianism is the antithesis of everything they say they stand for, yet it appears they'll be out on the street cheering when its leaders rumble through their town...
Since when did the Right have logic or reason? They should be one of the most interesting psychological studies of modern times. Especially those poor, rural, half-literate right-wingers who they can count on to vote against their own interests time and time again.
Besides, the upper echelon of the right isn't about smaller government and individual rights. They talk that crap to appease their minions, but what they really mean is their right to tell you what you can do. Individual right only apply to them and theirs. Everyone else should be their slave or underling.
Remember those poor, dumb southern farm boys who fought so valiantly for slaveholders and "states rights" awhile back? They're still with us.
Gee, the corporations also own the third branch of our government too. What a surprise considering the Justices are selected by those in the other two branches that are already bought and owned.
The oligarchs will push their influence as far as the peons will allow it. Then, if the peons complain they will start a war or commit a covert act of terrorism to whip the peons into an irrational patriotic frenzy. They know how to own the ignorant masses body and soul. Then, in an even more brazen disregard for decency, they leave the peons and generations of their kids with the tab to pay for it all. Meanwhile they jump through countless tax loopholes given by their Congressional underlings!
Gee, I wonder which country they will attack next if the peons gripe too much? Be mindful if the public starts rumbling too much, because they'll start off with a phony "terrorist attack" here first to soften up the lemmings and get their 90% plus approval rating for the next invasion we don't need and can't afford. Salute the flag and shed a tear!!!
Good luck to all here as we wander through the coming years completely owned by the fascist oligarchs. It should be an interesting time.
If we link arms and wander together it will be even more interesting!
I agree FastEddie. I hope we can do it. I've been talking to folks about it for some time. I hope we can join together and do it.
Me too. Seems to me the millions of workers who lost their jobs over the past few years could form a solid nucleus to attract the rest.
FastEddie75: "millions of workers who have lost their jobs." Right and I would add millions who have lost their homes (some of them the same) and even some (not millions) who have lost their loved ones in our senseless "wars"; and the homeless and the poverty-stricken who aren't normally voters or political activists because they see the whole system of "politics" stacked against them. These and others are the targets of opportunity for the nucleus of a huge grassroots movement: the "lost" people of our time; not people caught up in the consumerist culture of American Idol and sports competitions; these are the "likely voters" who alternate between two equally future D and R leadership: today one is in their favor, tomorrow the same will be cast off the island. It is among the "unlikely voters," the variously dispossessed who are the nucleus of an American style Bolivarian revolution: just to mention a successful "peasant" revolt. Progressives can prevail, but only if they get themselves to the other side of the social tracks, relating to how the other half lives. (For an old white retired professor like me, who came from the---sort of---dispossessed, this is a mouthful to say.)
Mouthful or not, well said! I recently read Herve Kempf's book, "How the Rich are Destroying the Earth." Kempf is the environmental editor at Le Monde. Though the title may sound bombastic, the arguments in it are interesting. He argues that corporatist governments are oligarchies run by a select, upper middle-class group serving themselves and the "hyper-rich" who benefit most from said governments. They set the standards toward which the middle class aspires. The consumer economy enables the middle class to emulate the conspicuous consumption of the oligarchs, albeit in a limited way. But despite the astonishing character of the conspicuous consumption of the hyper-rich, there are too few people in this ruling class to generate global environmental destruction at the scale we are witnessing. That takes a massive middle-class chowing on fast food, driving gas guzzlers, spending, ever spending on more stuff from Walmart, COSTCO, Target, etc.
Kempf argues that the middle class will never turn from consumption as a way of life until the oligarchs lead by example. He may be right. On the other hand, as the middle class is destroyed, the mass of consumers and the mass they consume must abate. Regardless, it is just as you say: those of us who have been privileged to count ourselves among the middle class are going to have to "get [our]selves to the other side of the social tracks, relating to how the other half lives." We have to carry a new standard that rejects material consumption in favor of lives enriched by other means. Who knows? Perhaps that will be in greater community.
Find an anchor point, organize, and let others know where to join you. That's what I'll try to do in the Bay Area next week.
We can't link arms until we stand close enough to link, in actions all over the country. Organize, and post links for others. Details ...
Good luck!
Ralph, the 'democracy advocate', and Stevens are right in tying this issue to America's founding genius, and enlightenment in choosing democracy over Empire.
It's really a simple choice, we now need to reinforce and expand to all aspect of our lives and society ---- as an anti-Empire 'social democracy'.
The choice in all spheres of life & society such as the key ‘5 or 6’; political, business, religion, social, educational, etc. is merely a choice of democracy/freedom or Empire.
The founding of the United States of America in 'the new world' followed this generalized enlightenment principle by choosing for our "life & society" to select "democracy & freedom" (instead of Empire) in the spheres of political and religious life --- and this choice of democracy & freedom in each sphere also included the protection of our democracy & freedom in the political sphere from our democracy & freedom choice in the sphere of religion (and vise versa).
This founding American choice was a simple and elegant idea of enlightenment for all individuals in a society (large or small) to protect our free choice of democracy & freedom (vs Empire) in all our spheres of life.
So, the only real choice that we now have to re-address, for a second endorsement of America’s founding idea of democracy & freedom, is the simple binary choice of whether we want to live in a society (which is now the whole world) based on democracy & freedom (in all spheres of our lives, and protected from any adverse impacts by other spheres of life) OR whether we want to live in a life and society of Empire ruling every sphere of life and society --- because Empire in any one sphere (particularly the economic) will ineluctably seep into and pollute all life --- and remember, you aren't going to be the Emperor!
As Clint Eastwood said, "Well, in all this excitement I don't remember if it was ‘5 or 6’. So, punk, do you want to take that chance?"
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Although I generally resist binaries, I find much to think about here. Thanks.
What you fail to realize is that the people who hold all the levers of power in America are imperialist swine. Talk to any "leader" and their vision is that America should and will walk around the world carrying a big stick.
Your contention that imperialism versus democracy are mutually exclusive choices is a valid one. To think that the citizens of this nation can make that choice today is naive. The choice has been made for us.
Corporations, artificial constructs, have the constitutional privileges of humans, but are not bound by the same laws.
If I throw poison into my neighbor's yard and their kid eats it, dies, and I'm found guilty, I'll be going to jail or possibly executed by the state.
If a corporation does the same thing it suffers only a minor financial penalty and continues with its life as normal.
Why do artificial constructs, corporations, have all the privileges and protections of the law but are not subject to the same penalties as their human counterparts?
How can anyone who argues in defense of Citizens United not be a hypocrite for not also demanding corporations be subject equally to all the laws of human beings?
Every defense, oil and banking company in this country is guilty of the murder of innocent people. If ALL the laws were applied equally, and not just the privileges, such as free speech, they should've been subjected to the death penalty long ago (having their corporate charter dissolved.)
If corporations, are in essence "beings", they MUST be subject to all the laws.
Yes!
What FastEddie said!
>>If corporations, are in essence "beings", they MUST be subject to all the laws.<<
They are. Corporate law. A very odd bird.
Gary