Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fighting Back Against a Corporate Court
A recent Supreme Court decision may mark a turning point for our democracy.
The decision on Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission could have been relatively limited. When it first arrived at the Supreme Court, it only required the Court to decide whether feature-length films on Pay-Per-View were subject to the provisions of campaign finance regulations.
But the Court, over the course of many months, expanded the scope of the case to radically transform not just politics, but the democratic system itself.
Instead of ruling on the limited question that the case actually raised, the Court, led by relatively new Chief Justice John Roberts, demolished a premise that is more than a century old: that Congress has the lawful authority to restrict corporate spending in elections. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that corporations have the same free-speech rights as human beings, and that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to regulate their independent expenditures in elections. Put in plain English, that means enormous corporations can pour unlimited amounts of money into supporting—or defeating—particular candidates.
And the amount of money that could be unleashed is mind-boggling. Exxon Mobil earned $45.2 billion in profits in 2008. Just 2 percent of that would be more than the combined costs of the McCain and Obama presidential campaigns. If Exxon Mobil decided to spend just that small sliver of its profits on behalf of one candidate, it could upend the election to select the leader of the free world.
Of course, Exxon Mobil doesn’t need to spend that much money to have an impact on our country. The ability to spend it is enough.
Imagine that our senators faced a decision on whether or not to sponsor climate change legislation in the next few months. The legislation might be good for their constituents, but bad for Big Oil. If they fail to sponsor it, they’ll get some angry phone calls from constituents who care about the environment. But if they do sponsor it, they could easily face tens of millions of dollars' worth of attack ads. Which do we think they’ll choose? The legislation will go unsponsored and Exxon Mobil won’t have to spend a dime.
The results will be disastrous. Elected officials will swiftly become answerable to giant corporations instead of to ordinary voters. The point isn’t that it will hurt progressives or conservatives. Regardless of whether or not you approve of the decisions your elected officials make, those decisions won’t be made to please you—they’ll be made to further corporate interests.
Already various legislative solutions have been proposed, and they should be considered seriously. But there are only two ways to completely fix the damage done by this decision: change the Supreme Court or change the Constitution.
We need to do both.
In the coming years, justices will leave the Court and presidents will nominate replacements. It’s absolutely crucial that, whoever the president, Americans demand he or she nominate justices who put the rights of individual Americans above the rights of corporations.
And because of the potentially cataclysmic impact of the decision, we need to move forward with a constitutional amendment restoring Congress’s ability to limit corporate influence on elections.
As the leader of an organization dedicated to defending the Constitution and, especially, the First Amendment, I don’t think this is a solution that we should embrace lightly. But the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision requires an appropriate response.
The Court’s ruling isn’t a vindication of the First Amendment, it’s a perversion. The Court has established a situation in which the free speech rights of individual Americans are rendered meaningless by the speech of corporations—even thought corporations are not people and are only constructed for economic purposes.
In Citizens United, the Court did great harm to our Constitution. And it will take a bold effort to undo that. But together, it’s a challenge we can undoubtedly overcome.
44 Comments so far
Show AllSCOTUS's decision reinforces the perverse concept of corporate personhood, an idea gaining, step-by-step, increased acceptance with the Court. This decision just adds to that idea the freedom of speech.
The People Party, Inc. ought to be formed to sponsor a political party (also The People Party). Get it a 100,000 members and everyone kicks in $100 that gives us $10 million to play with. I'm below the poverty line and I can find a c-note so I know that progressives for the most part could do the same. And that doesn't include additional smaller(and larger) donations once the campaign starts rolling, ala Obama.
So don't tell me a viable third party is not credible. Once we build to over a million supporters the cash will flow in. And WE can spend on ads enough to counter the (other) corporations.
Gary
"The ballot is stronger than the bullet."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Hi
I agree you need to set up a 3rd party as the 2 party system is not working.
"The ballot is stronger than the bullet."
"Elected officials will swiftly become answerable to giant corporations instead of to ordinary voters."
I don't know where Michael has been for the past thirty years but this fear was realized under Reagan.
I was hoping for some more realistic recommendations than what are listed here (none of which is news).
Yes, we do need a Constitutional amendment and a meteor strike on a SCOTUS session but the very elements which the author decries as threats to our "democratic" elections will also work to stifle such an amendment.
q
The five 'activist' justices were all given to us by Republican presidents. Doing anything that might help elect a Republican president is one of the most potentially damaging things that any of us might do. In 2 or 3 decades we can begin replacing these 5 corporatists. We just need a little bit of patience.
Or maybe a bit of luck. Get these justices out on the golf course and pray for lightning...or team them up with Cheney, maybe his aim is a bit more off these days...or I know a friend "Guido" who can...
Greg R,
Remember that a whole lot of Democratic Senators gave their consent to all five of those justices! The corporate problem has infested both political parties.
The main problem is that our representatives are human. We are all free to pretend that a 3rd party could miraculously create wondrous representation. The pathetic Democrats are our best hope. If people care enough, we can upgrade the quality on occasion, and help with a bit of spine-stiffening at other times. Personally, I feel quite lucky. My Senators are Klobachar and Franken. We could do worse.
Georgia's senators are Isakson and Chambliss.
We'd be better off with no senators.
q
We don't have two or three decades --
Global Warming is changing our lives now --
and fascism has crossed our threshold in "America."
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
A constitutional amendment is an inadequate solution to the problems we face as a nation.
We need a re-thinking and a re-writing of our form of government to move it more closely in line with the needs of the people. In 1789 our constitution was a startling, radical break from the stultifying tradition of rule by divine right. But it was by no means perfect. The framers (our beloved Founders) were pioneers, staking out new territory. They feared the people...feared that the people would try to distribute the nation's assets fairly. As he propertied class this idea was anathema.
But 200 years later we can look to other countries who have taken that baton and moved it far forward. At present the US is far behind much of the world in recognizing and safeguarding human rights.
Although this idea seems obvious to me it's very difficult to envisage how a constitutional convention could possibly end up being fair or operated for the benefit of the people.
I do not remember the details, but isn't there a way for Congress to remove a topic from judicial scrutiny? That would be the simplest and quickest way to get legislation through that could undo the effects of this decision.
First I've ever heard of such an exclusion. Seems rankly unconstitutional, what with the Separation of Powers and all. But I'd like to be wrong on this -- or would I? We've had GOOD SCOTUS that struck down unfair and just plain bad laws I am sure the Congress, for their special interests, would have loved to make immune from being stuck down by the Court. Two-edged sword.
Gary
“Whatever the politics of such a decision, it would be ordinary people who would suffer the consequences. Cutting aid now would undermine already fragile local institutions and only hurt ordinary people.”
-- Jeremy Hobbs
Corporations have been writing Supreme Court Decisions ever since "Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad" destroyed our republic.
It's difficult to believe that this is a serious comment. The Santa Clara decision by the Supreme Court merely recognized what has been standard belief and practice since the Middle Ages -- that an organized group of human beings in the legal form of a corporation has rights similar to an individual human being. There is nothing strange or dangerous about such a ruling. And the idea that such a commonsensical decision "destroyed our republic" is laughable. How odd that such venomous anger is being directed at the SCOTUS because of the recent ruling -- as if a corporation should not have the right to broadcast a film about a particular presidential candidate. Why not? And why would a wealthy individual have that right? --- There is so much misinformation and hysteria surrounding this decision that one scarcely knows where to begin a defense of it. Should the right to publicly endorse candidates be reserved for some corporations (e.g. The NY Times) but not for others? And what is so wonderful about our government deciding who is allowed to advertise for a candidate and who is not? Take a deep breath, remember that the vast majority of corporations will be too timorous to advertise for controversial candidates, and that money doesn't always translate into votes (Scott Brown spent less than his opponent, and California is littered with unsuccessful millionaires who tried to spend their way to high office; Michael Huffington is merely the best-known).
Candidates with the most money win their races over 90% of the time. (The percentage is slightly more in the primaries than in the general election.)
"...remember that the vast majority of corporations will be too timorous to advertise for controversial candidates..." Er, what's the point?
Is your post the newest, spiffy re-write of history?
Individuals come together as a "corporation" to escape risks of business,
to escape normal human accountability.
This "bus-i-ness" we call capitalism is a ridiculous King-of-the-Hill system.
It is antonymous to democracy and based on exploitation of nature, natural resources, animal life -- and even other human beings according to various myths
of inferiority.
Along with this decision, if I recall correctly, these corporations also want
to remain anonymous. Shedding light on corporations that campaign together against
equality, civil rights, unions, living wage, safety nets, the environment,
etal doesn't work out well for them. They prefer to do their dirty work in the dark.
Keep in mind the Middle Ages were the Dark Age --
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
to .
to .
to th: you're wrong. other western countries do not recognize such a right and treat business groups differently. businesses in enlgland may not buy politicians; otherwise, england would have the same wretched and inequitable health care system that we have here. the people of western europe would not tolerate a system wherein 48,000 people die every year because they did not have a card to present the medicine man. without an umbrella, good hands, a cross of blue, or eight- point antlers emblazoned on a 2" by 4" card, you may very well die in this country. by contrast, the european politicians entombing the cardless would be run out of office, if not drawn and quartered. american criminal law also treats groups differently, in recognition of the power and potential harm groups present to society and law enforcement.. for instance, if a group comes to an agreement to committ a crime, the agreement itself constitutes a criminal conspiracy, meriting each individual years, if not decades, in jail. the law requires no overt act. combinations' potential for wrongdoing looms just as large in the civil arena, as teddy roosevelt fought the tendency of cartels to conspire to stifle competition and corner markets. the law he had passed in 1905 to limit corporate influence in the political arena has now been killed by john roberts, the outwardly congenial but intensely corporate -loving clone of the so-called free market. "all men are created equal," said the elephants as they stomped among the chickens. that quote from american history scholar h.l. ingle pretty well sums up the state of affairs in american politics today, especially with regard to campaign financing. and in a somewhat humorous aside, we can all imagine that even the ancient medicine men probably cast their curative incantations equally upon all economic classes. in their spirit, we should pursue medicare for all in the united states of america.
to th: you're wrong. other western countries do not recognize such a right and treat business groups differently. businesses in enlgland may not buy politicians; otherwise, england would have the same wretched and inequitable health care system that we have here. the people of western europe would not tolerate a system wherein 48,000 people die every year because they did not have a card to present the medicine man. without an umbrella, good hands, a cross of blue, or eight- point antlers emblazoned on a 2" by 4" card, you may very well die in this country. by contrast, the european politicians entombing the cardless would be run out of office, if not drawn and quartered. american criminal law also treats groups differently, in recognition of the power and potential harm groups present to society and law enforcement.. for instance, if a group comes to an agreement to committ a crime, the agreement itself constitutes a criminal conspiracy, meriting each individual years, if not decades, in jail. the law requires no overt act. combinations' potential for wrongdoing looms just as large in the civil arena, as teddy roosevelt fought the tendency of cartels to conspire to stifle competition and corner markets. the law he had passed in 1905 to limit corporate influence in the political arena has now been killed by john roberts, the outwardly congenial but intensely corporate -loving clone of the so-called free market. "all men are created equal," said the elephants as they stomped among the chickens. that quote from american history scholar h.l. ingle pretty well sums up the state of affairs in american politics today, especially with regard to campaign financing. and in a somewhat humorous aside, we can all imagine that even the ancient medicine men probably cast their curative incantations equally upon all economic classes. in their spirit, we should pursue medicare for all in the united states of america.
Corporations have not only co-opted the Courts. They have infested virtually every aspect of LIFE itself going so far as to claim "Patents" to life.
Here is an example of how the Corporation has made itself known in what is "American Culture"
In the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games a number of persons representing Canadas first peoples are on the stage. They have symbols representing various animals as the Animal kingdom and nature played such an important role in their Culture.
One of those was the Great Bear one of the most revered animals in Aboriginal culture. It represents Motherhood and Protection and Bravery. The White bear in particular (Polar and Kermode) is seen as a messenger of the Spirit world. The image of the bear abounds in their wood carvings, their ivory and soapstone scultres and their art.
So we have an American Journalist whom I believe was from Texas.
He mocks the ceremonies in a column he writes and pokes fun at
the organizers of the Games using "The Coca Cola Bear" in its opening ceremonies.
So on the one hand the culture of an entire people see the bear as something to respect. It represents traits to emulate.
And on the other a person sees the bear as can of Coca Cola.
Thats Corporate power.
As Shadow Dancer says..."Cash registers from sea to shining sea".
Robert Reich and Ralph Nader for the Supreme Court!
Rather than corporatists on the court or in the White House --
we need humanists --
Our planet is what this is all about -- not corporations --
PS: Aren't the corporations also asking to be anonymous?
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
I agree. The worst part, apart from the destruction of our democracy, is that these "persons" are not held accountable.
Corps. as individuals is the problem period. This fantasy needs to be remedied and fast. The Court has decided that its time to give the Plutocracy its rights in stone.
According to the recent ABC News / Washington Post poll (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137 ), roughly 80% of Americans oppose the Court decision. That's a *huge* percentage! There's *no* excuse for Congress not to pass immediately a constitutional amendment reversing the Court decision, nor for the state legislatures not to pass the same to ratify it.
However in the real world, Congress may instead pass a series of weak laws after much empty posturing, designed to claim "victory" while keeping themselves on that corporate gravy train of funding.
Time to get out and march. They marched in Madison, Wisconsin on Tuesday (see http://www.wisdc.org/ ). We need nationwide protests now to keep the heat on ...
As I recall, 76% of REPUBLICANS oppose this ruling. Don't ever turn the heat down.
Newsflash: 80% of all congress is against this rule...simply because this allows DIRECT spending on election propoganda by corporations....they have cut out the middleman..the politicians, who will no longer get their greedy little cut.
Then we'll see what they do about it. I still suspect they'll opt to please their corporate sponsors rather than for substantive changes ...
"If Exxon Mobil decided to spend just that small sliver of its profits on behalf of one candidate, it could upend the election to select the leader of the free world."
I have two things to say about this section of the article:
1)I thought that American politics and politicians were already completely under corporate control.
2)I live in the "free world" too, but I wasn't eligible to vote for the "leader of the free world" so therefore, he is the leader of the US only. He does not rule me or my country (I have a dictatorial PM who believes it is easier to govern without parliament and who would sell out if he could). When ALL the citizens of free countries both North and South can vote for the American president, then we can call that president the world's leader.
"leader of the free world"
I understand your point but he is the "leader" since he's the only person who can declare any human on the planet to be an "enemy combatant" and thus subject to assasination and you don't even know if you're on his blacklist.
"Elected officials will swiftly become answerable to giant corporations instead of to ordinary voters."
Mr. Keegan, do you pretend that this is not already the case?
A wonderful article, but a Duh. Corporations are NOT people.
It is obvious to any reasonable person. Why is this even in Court.
As with many other developments in the past 30 years, I've wondered how the american people could accept this ruling by SCOTUS.
Then it dawned on me:
These are the same people who bitch about $4.00/gallon gasoline but eagerly pay $8.00 per gallon for water in disposable plastic bottles, convinced that it is preferable to the tap water they can drink for free.
"...And crown thy good with Suckerhood, from sea to shining sea."
In practice, this won't change anything. Corporate special interests already control the political system.
The U.S. Best government, money can buy
Wow, Exxon made a lot of money. Now that this corporation is a"person," how much will the IRS tax them at a "person's rate? I'd be curious to see this.
Do you suppose that it will be enough so that now, no candidate will have to pay for any election? That Exxon tax money should bring in a bundle. As many candicates who want, can now be represented in full to the public. all paid by that person , Exxon's, tax dollars.
Thanks Exxon, if this works out, we will have achieved finance reform, and killed off the lobbyists at the same time!.
now corporations can run tobacco advertisements, or at least political messages saying that the laws against tobacco advertising are wrong, illegal, and ought to be overturned. the politicians would follow the money. the ads could be back on t.v. soon. malboro man mates with slim virginia. not so far fetched, and could be a reality within 5 years.
Hey, maybe if the Mexican Drug Cartels formed a (Delaware based) corporation they could, after tobacco cleared the way, advertise THEIR products on TV. Think of the ads! Lovely addicts dancing away to salsa music. Hunky he-men smoking crack as the ladies give them the eye. Advertising agencies would be drolling to get the work.
Gary
"Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket."
-- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
Am I missing something? The corporations ALREADY run the show. They already, have since at least the 50's, run the elections via ABCCBSNBCPBS, build the ballot machines, and spin the ads and news everywhere. And the entire thing is lobby'd up for 2010/2012/2014. Some of those people must laugh their butts off reading how we actually believe this SC decision is something NEW. NOW IT's in our flipping faces and we still can't bust off to DC in the 100's of thousands saying 'hell no'. What a bunch of whimps we have become. We are like two year olds mad cause the milk is gone, but mommy killed the cow, and we don't care about that. We just want milk.
TRUE but now worse.
PROGRESSIVES AND ALEX JONES SUPPORTERS MUST PROTEST IN WASHINGTON OR MAJOR CITIES ON MARCH 30th TO STOP THE WARS
HEALTHCARE NOT WARFARE BROWN BAGS (Not teabags) ARE AVAILABLE TO PROTEST IN FRONT OF YOUR REPRESENTATIVES/SENATOR'S OFFICES GET THEM!
IT'S MARCH 20 ----TWENTIETH- 20 --IN DC FROM THE POTOMAC TO THE CAPITOL UNDER THE STERN WATCHFUL EYE OF THE BIG DICK MONUMENT.
I don't know, I'm startin to root for the militia guys.
I have mentioned in another post the other day that we need a 3rd party. With the many activist, progressive groups around the country, can't we muster up a mass coalition between all groups to form a bigger alliance? more people = more power and money to make real change.