The supreme court decision today that reverses half a centery of campaign finance reform for corporations is completely crazy. The arguments made in favor of changing restrictions that have been in place since 1947 are based on some of the most peverse readings of the constitution I have ever encountered. The argument that boils down to corporate personhood should strike every american as crazy. This is not a country by, of and for the corporations.
Current laws put limits on the ability of companies to contribute to financial campaigns and effectively limit companies right to free speech. Thats all well and good but can the strict constructionists on the court tell me where in the constitution it says that companies have the same rights as people? Companies should not be protected by the equal protection clause of the constitution. Here it is Section 1 of the fourteenth ammendments. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So the whole first portion of this section basically defines person and then says that people shall have equal protection under the law. WHERE ARE COMPANIES PEOPLE? Where? This interpretation of the constitution cheapens what it means to be human. If companies have a right to free speech why cant they vote. It is nearly the same language. Maybe what bothers me most is that it seems ideologically inconsistant for republicans to advocate individual freedoms when they are less concerned about people then they are about a piece of paper which represents a companies articals of incorporations. Companies are just paper. Sure people work for companies but companies themselves are not people. Its not right.
PBS has a great explanation of the history pertaining to corporate personhood. This is something that will anger the american people once/ if they realize what has happened. The people will be in favor of the Dems position on this. Maybe they will even be able to do something about it. Congress does have the power to further interperate this section through section 5 of the act. Individual rights are dead in America. Long Live Money.
RIP my Rights.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corprights.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I AGREE!!!! Its incredible what the Supreme Court has just ruled. As you know my honors thesis was on Campaign finance and I have been following this closely.
Well put, Steve!
Probably this is justified under the same assumption as what allows Unions and political action funds may also purchase ads--these organization's aren't people but they are made up by people-- thus it is reasoned that corporations are human institutions-- if you allow one you have to allow them all. That at least strikes me as the reasoning behind it.
Frankly, considering that unions and political action groups, funds, and citizens groups have long been able to use their collective financial clout to purchase ads, I really don't see how this changes much at all-- if Wal-mart wishes to campaign for a policy (while being required to disclose that the ad is sponsored by wal-mart) I hardly see how this will unduly sway people's decisions more than "citizens for corporate buy in bulk mega-stores United" would in an ad-- frankly as most corporations prefer to avoid controversy lest they offend consumers and voters unduly, I can't this being too nefarious, any more than the Teachers Union using taxpayer money (taken from their members'dues forcibly) to donate or campaign for certain candidates. Either you have to stop all of these, or it's all game-- not sure if I completely agree with the premise, but I believe it to be fairly reasonable.
As for judicial precedent, it (in practical terms) doesn't mean all that much-- Dredd Scott was judicial precedent, as was Plessy v. Fergeson, as were 1880s supreme court rulings that effectively gutted the 14th Amendment, as was "the Death Penalty is unconstitutional" followed a few years later by, "The Death Penalty is constitutional with these changes to it", the right to buy condoms in x town- becomes the right to abortion on demand...to...etc... a sitting Supreme court which interprets the Constitution can interpret differently from its predecessors, as can their successors from them...world without end, Amen.
Justin, I am more concerned with the principal of corporate personhood. The line is becomming increasingly blurred. Companies now get the advantage of free speech in media but have less of a proportional tax rate. They get the advantages without the costs. This activist court has taken an issue that wasnt even before the court since the argument was taken out of the brief to the supreme court. They just decided to rule on something that wasnt even before them. They said there was precedent but stare decisis didnt mater to them when they reversed this decision.
As for the actual effect on campaign finance reform, companied and unions are not subject to disclosing who paid for the add. Wal Mart can simply say that candidate x doesnt have your interests in mind and has acted irresponcibly. Vote against candidate x. Are you telling me that wont be confusing to the american voter? You wont know who paid for what and adds can be blasted for any reason.
What about foreign companies domiciled in the US? They can now advertise with political speech advocating anything they want. Citgo having the right to advertise political speech is dangerous and denying them speech is now constitutionaly another question.
Plus since when is money speech. I didnt see the right to spend my money in advertisements in the first amendment either.
Justice Kennedy addressed the concept of transparency in his decision-- he encouraged and suggested greater regulatory and legislative emphasis on transparency. Only Justice Thomas in his separate response was for "all's well and fair" more or less.
Post a Comment