Corporations in Politics Are Like a Tractor-Trailer Drifting Into Your Lane
When I attended an FEC hearing on possible new rules to prevent foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries from donating to U.S. campaigns, I was struck at how each side was talking past the other.
When I attended an FEC hearing on possible new rules to prevent foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries from donating to U.S. campaigns, I was struck at how each side was talking past the other.
While the Republicans had a modest proposal to keep foreign money out of U.S. elections and the Democrats had a more comprehensive one, the Commission deadlocked on both. We remain where we started: no new rules on keeping foreign money at bay.
In the spirit of trying to build some common ground, perhaps we can at least agree on the history that led us to the point where we disagree. In my book, Corporate Citizen? An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State, I explain how corporations have changed over time and how their legal rights have expanded. And why it is so problematic to share a democracy with large corporations.
Having a big corporation in a democracy is like sharing the road with a tractor-trailer. If the tractor-trailer's driver isn't thoughtful, they can drift into your lane causing mayhem. And just because of their sheer size, smaller cars (like speakers with smaller budgets) may have to yield to the corporate 18-wheeler barreling down the road. As a way of organizing a business, corporations are older than America. They existed for centuries in Europe before the U.S. was a country. At the founding, corporations were rare. The reason was that a corporation could only be created by an act of a state legislature. Not everyone had the ear of a legislature, and so only a favored few won the privilege of being a corporation.
But things changed and now nearly anyone who can pay a nominal filing fee can set up their own corporation. Early state laws also had limits on how much money a company could have and sometimes how long a corporation could last. Those restrictions also fell by the wayside. Now corporations can grow as large as they wish (subject to antitrust laws) and can last indefinitely.
Corporate lawyers have been greedy for new rights for their clients. They successfully argued to the Supreme Court that corporations should (like their human counterparts) be covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Arguably corporations got more protection from this part of the Constitution for decades than the ex-slaves it was intended to protect. And it's not difficult to see why. The ex-slaves had few lawyers to expand their rights; the largest corporations of the day, often railroads, had the best representation money could buy.
The immortality and size of corporations are two reasons why I find granting them political rights particularly inappropriate. But this is precisely what the Supreme Court (and many lower courts following the Justices' lead) have done. In cases like Bellotti which allowed corporations to spend in ballot initiatives and Citizens United which allowed corporations to spend in candidate elections, corporations are accruing rights once enjoyed only by human beings.
Corporations have been chomping at the bit to expand these rights. One case they hope to overturn is called Beaumont. This ruling upholds a long-standing federal ban on corporations giving directly to campaigns of federal candidates. Corporations have built on their First Amendment rights in Citizens United by arguing and winning religious rights in Hobby Lobby. There is potentially no end in sight save for the fact that these rulings are judge-made decisions. Just as judges created Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, a future court can undo this damage slowly, case by case.
Until the Supreme Court changes course, we are stuck with Bellotti, Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. Corporations are now in our elections and they're empowered to claim religious exemptions from democratically-enacted laws. And so we are the small car driving with corporate big rigs in the next lane. All we can hope is that they drive responsibly and don't drift dangerously into our lane pushing us off the road as we try to make it safely home.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
When I attended an FEC hearing on possible new rules to prevent foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries from donating to U.S. campaigns, I was struck at how each side was talking past the other.
While the Republicans had a modest proposal to keep foreign money out of U.S. elections and the Democrats had a more comprehensive one, the Commission deadlocked on both. We remain where we started: no new rules on keeping foreign money at bay.
In the spirit of trying to build some common ground, perhaps we can at least agree on the history that led us to the point where we disagree. In my book, Corporate Citizen? An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State, I explain how corporations have changed over time and how their legal rights have expanded. And why it is so problematic to share a democracy with large corporations.
Having a big corporation in a democracy is like sharing the road with a tractor-trailer. If the tractor-trailer's driver isn't thoughtful, they can drift into your lane causing mayhem. And just because of their sheer size, smaller cars (like speakers with smaller budgets) may have to yield to the corporate 18-wheeler barreling down the road. As a way of organizing a business, corporations are older than America. They existed for centuries in Europe before the U.S. was a country. At the founding, corporations were rare. The reason was that a corporation could only be created by an act of a state legislature. Not everyone had the ear of a legislature, and so only a favored few won the privilege of being a corporation.
But things changed and now nearly anyone who can pay a nominal filing fee can set up their own corporation. Early state laws also had limits on how much money a company could have and sometimes how long a corporation could last. Those restrictions also fell by the wayside. Now corporations can grow as large as they wish (subject to antitrust laws) and can last indefinitely.
Corporate lawyers have been greedy for new rights for their clients. They successfully argued to the Supreme Court that corporations should (like their human counterparts) be covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Arguably corporations got more protection from this part of the Constitution for decades than the ex-slaves it was intended to protect. And it's not difficult to see why. The ex-slaves had few lawyers to expand their rights; the largest corporations of the day, often railroads, had the best representation money could buy.
The immortality and size of corporations are two reasons why I find granting them political rights particularly inappropriate. But this is precisely what the Supreme Court (and many lower courts following the Justices' lead) have done. In cases like Bellotti which allowed corporations to spend in ballot initiatives and Citizens United which allowed corporations to spend in candidate elections, corporations are accruing rights once enjoyed only by human beings.
Corporations have been chomping at the bit to expand these rights. One case they hope to overturn is called Beaumont. This ruling upholds a long-standing federal ban on corporations giving directly to campaigns of federal candidates. Corporations have built on their First Amendment rights in Citizens United by arguing and winning religious rights in Hobby Lobby. There is potentially no end in sight save for the fact that these rulings are judge-made decisions. Just as judges created Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, a future court can undo this damage slowly, case by case.
Until the Supreme Court changes course, we are stuck with Bellotti, Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. Corporations are now in our elections and they're empowered to claim religious exemptions from democratically-enacted laws. And so we are the small car driving with corporate big rigs in the next lane. All we can hope is that they drive responsibly and don't drift dangerously into our lane pushing us off the road as we try to make it safely home.
When I attended an FEC hearing on possible new rules to prevent foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries from donating to U.S. campaigns, I was struck at how each side was talking past the other.
While the Republicans had a modest proposal to keep foreign money out of U.S. elections and the Democrats had a more comprehensive one, the Commission deadlocked on both. We remain where we started: no new rules on keeping foreign money at bay.
In the spirit of trying to build some common ground, perhaps we can at least agree on the history that led us to the point where we disagree. In my book, Corporate Citizen? An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State, I explain how corporations have changed over time and how their legal rights have expanded. And why it is so problematic to share a democracy with large corporations.
Having a big corporation in a democracy is like sharing the road with a tractor-trailer. If the tractor-trailer's driver isn't thoughtful, they can drift into your lane causing mayhem. And just because of their sheer size, smaller cars (like speakers with smaller budgets) may have to yield to the corporate 18-wheeler barreling down the road. As a way of organizing a business, corporations are older than America. They existed for centuries in Europe before the U.S. was a country. At the founding, corporations were rare. The reason was that a corporation could only be created by an act of a state legislature. Not everyone had the ear of a legislature, and so only a favored few won the privilege of being a corporation.
But things changed and now nearly anyone who can pay a nominal filing fee can set up their own corporation. Early state laws also had limits on how much money a company could have and sometimes how long a corporation could last. Those restrictions also fell by the wayside. Now corporations can grow as large as they wish (subject to antitrust laws) and can last indefinitely.
Corporate lawyers have been greedy for new rights for their clients. They successfully argued to the Supreme Court that corporations should (like their human counterparts) be covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Arguably corporations got more protection from this part of the Constitution for decades than the ex-slaves it was intended to protect. And it's not difficult to see why. The ex-slaves had few lawyers to expand their rights; the largest corporations of the day, often railroads, had the best representation money could buy.
The immortality and size of corporations are two reasons why I find granting them political rights particularly inappropriate. But this is precisely what the Supreme Court (and many lower courts following the Justices' lead) have done. In cases like Bellotti which allowed corporations to spend in ballot initiatives and Citizens United which allowed corporations to spend in candidate elections, corporations are accruing rights once enjoyed only by human beings.
Corporations have been chomping at the bit to expand these rights. One case they hope to overturn is called Beaumont. This ruling upholds a long-standing federal ban on corporations giving directly to campaigns of federal candidates. Corporations have built on their First Amendment rights in Citizens United by arguing and winning religious rights in Hobby Lobby. There is potentially no end in sight save for the fact that these rulings are judge-made decisions. Just as judges created Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, a future court can undo this damage slowly, case by case.
Until the Supreme Court changes course, we are stuck with Bellotti, Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. Corporations are now in our elections and they're empowered to claim religious exemptions from democratically-enacted laws. And so we are the small car driving with corporate big rigs in the next lane. All we can hope is that they drive responsibly and don't drift dangerously into our lane pushing us off the road as we try to make it safely home.