By now you have probably heard that five of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot think of any reason why corporations doing business in this country should be prevented from spending as much money as they want to defeat a political candidate or policy that is not to their liking, or to elect one that is.
For more than sixty years there have been campaign finance rules in place that prohibit corporations from spending their own money on the production and distribution of campaign ads. However, on January 21, 2010, the Court ruled in a five-to-four decision that if it’s their money, a corporation can spend as much as it wants to produce and run campaign ads.
In other words, Corporation X cannot give a dime to Candidate Smith, but a handful of executives who call the shots can pony up millions of dollars of the corporation’s assets to promote her campaign. Or suppose those same corporate executives don’t like Smith’s opponent, Candidate Jones. Too bad for Jones, because Corporation X has deep pockets, and those executives can spend as much of it as they want to campaign against him.
Oh yes, and if it spends more than $10,000, the corporation has to file a report with the Federal Election Commission.
The Court decision also applies to labor unions. They too can now spend as much of their union assets as they want on ads for or against candidates. By comparison, however, unions tend to have considerably fewer assets, certainly fewer of the kind that can be spent on campaign ads at the discretion of union leadership.
No sooner had the decision been announced than the partisan posturing began. On one side, there were voices decrying the unleashing of special interests and their influence in politics. On the other side, voices sang the praises of this decision as a defense of the right of free speech and association. Regardless, we should expect in the future a tsunami of ads paid for and put out by big oil, big banks, big insurance, big car makers, etc.
In writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy noted that so far as political speech is concerned, corporations are no different than individuals in their freedom to exercise that right. But by any stretch of the imagination, a corporation is not an individual, though it may be constituted by any number of persons. Corporations do pay taxes, but they don’t vote or go to school or care for aging parents. They don’t pray in the house of worship of their choice or have drivers’ licenses. They don’t have the right to bear arms, seek medical attention in an emergency room, or serve on a jury. But individuals do.
Justice Kennedy seemed to be concerned that denying a corporation the right to spend as much of its own money as it wants on political ads could be seen as infringement on my right to think for myself. Apparently he’s also concerned about government deciding what people can and cannot hear or read or see. In his opinion on behalf of the majority, he wrote, “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” Well, yes it does, now doesn’t it!
If it’s true that denying that right of “free speech” to corporations is limiting my right to think, then correspondingly, granting that right should remove all limits to my right to think. So what would I think? Probably whatever the corporation wants me to think, since they are spending so much money to get their point across, and nothing creates a perception of the true better than spin, money and technology. George Lakoff is a cognitive scientist at UC Berkeley, and in his new book, The Political Mind, he shows that repetition has a way of working knowledge and certainty into the cranial synapses. If the message is fair and balanced, all to the good. But more likely, instead of information and perspective that is fair and balanced, what we would hear from the corporations is propaganda, the rhetoric of provincial corporate interests, the veiled justification for corporate culture and business practice that if otherwise subjected to scrutiny in a candid examination would horrify most U.S. citizens. Politics, as usual: manipulation, vested interests, absence of transparency, shading the truth, and on it goes.
But more important, for me at least, is what the absence of corporate spending limits means for our system of government. Corporations are few in number in comparison to the individuals in the United States. And yet they control trillions of dollars in assets. The number of individuals who control anywhere near that wealth can be counted on two hands, and their wealth is not even close. It is not inconceivable, given the Supreme Court’s decision and pending any legislative remedy to it, that the corporate elite, the small bands that control extraordinary assets available for molding political opinion and influencing action, are emerging as a political aristocracy with the capacity to control legislators to their bidding and shape policy to their liking. They are becoming a shadow oligarchy for whom government is an instrument bent to serve their particular global business and financial interests.
It is difficult to imagine any greater threat to civil liberty and social justice. Plato wrote at length about the three forms of government, monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. He wasn’t too keen on democracy, what with the rabble and the rousing and the cacophony of voices. He much preferred monarchy, but would settle for a good oligarchy if they were known and trusted individuals. Still, it’s safer and saner to go with a monarch. On the other hand, those to whom we credit the founding of the United States were as distrustful of monarchy as Plato was of democracy. The reason? Tyranny – bad king! Democracy is supposed to mitigate and remove tyranny of the one – or the few.
If the well-being and rights of all are to be protected, all have to be capacitated to contribute to and receive from the common good. No one’s interests supersede any one else’s interests in a democracy. Establishing the conditions necessary for achieving the common good requires that no one’s privileges trump those of others. We are a society where all are equal, where all individuals are equal, and have the right to participate fully and freely in our civil democracy.
The Supreme Court decision shifts the ground by granting a status to corporations that gives them an incredible advantage and set of protections in political discourse and influence. With their resources, compared to other individuals and groups, it can hardly be said to be a level playing field. Writing in his January 25, 2010 Washington Post column, D. J. Dionne declared that “the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision … giving American corporations the right to unlimited political spending was an astonishing display of judicial arrogance, overreach and unjustified activism.” I agree with this assessment of the Court’s decision, and with Dionne, I believe this is a propitious moment for us to initiate a populist revolt, pressing our legislative representatives in Congress and the president to pass campaign finance reform that corrects this mistake, levels the playing field in political activity, and keeps the aristocratic oligarchy at bay.
At the moment, your voice is being diminished. Unless you are favorably disposed toward oligarchy and political tyranny, I would think it’s time to get your dander up.
Peace,
Douglas Sharp
