Seems to me General Electric already had those rights, but other corporations didn't. Until those five
Posted on 01/30/2010 2:52:22 PM PST by presidio9
``I HOPE we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.''
Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Thanks in part to the Supreme Court and our diligent friends at Citizens United, the United States has now moved a step closer to formally adopting a ``one-dollar, one vote'' political system. I've long used the phrase satirically to describe the malign influence of tycoon-funded Washington propaganda shops like Citizens United upon our democracy. In the wake of last week's Supreme Court ruling awarding corporations precisely the same First Amendment rights as individual U.S. citizens, it's not so funny anymore.
Citizens United, and its head honcho, David Bossie, had a hand in virtually every lurid smear of Bill Clinton. Newt Gingrich eventually fired him as a congressional investigator for distributing doctored audiotapes falsely implicating Hillary Clinton in wrongdoing. During the 2008 primaries, Bossie helped produce another video attacking then-Sen. Clinton. Citizens United was free to sell it or give it away. Due to its corporate funding, however, the Federal Election Commission ruled that campaign finance laws prohibited its being broadcast as a political commercial.
Five radical-right judicial activists on the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Brushing aside a century of lawmaking and judicial precedent dating back to Theodore Roosevelt, they ruled that when it comes to political speech, you, I, General Electric, Toyota and Goldman Sachs have exactly the same free speech rights.
You're free to write a letter to the editor or stand on the corner holding a sign; corporate executives can spend as much as they like to influence elections. No, they still can't legally stuff wads of currency into politicians' pockets. But they're free to use unlimited company funds in support of causes and candidates friendly to the bottom line. Not their own personal money, mind you, but that of an abstract, purely legal entity having no passions or loyalties beyond economic self-interest. Even if the corporation is a multi-national headquartered on Wall Street, in London, Tokyo or Beijing.
In a remarkably bitter dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the majority's contention that ``the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by `Tokyo Rose' during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.''
This radical departure from anything intended or even imagined by the Founding Fathers some call ``conservatism.'' Actually, there's a more accurate term for the merger of national government and corporate power, but it's been thrown around so much at Tea Party events to describe President Obama that it's ceased to have any real meaning except that the individual using it is spittle-flinging mad. Think of it as the other F-word.
Suffice it to say that we're headed toward the day when politicians may appear on TV wearing one-piece jump suits festooned with corporate logos, like NASCAR drivers or pro bass fishermen. It won't simply be a sarcastic joke to describe Sen. Joe Lieberman as the Man from Aetna, or Sen. Blanche Lincoln as (D-Walmart). It may be close to literally true. Hardly anybody at odds with their state's most powerful corporate entities will have the proverbial snowball's chance of being elected. Not that they have a whole hell of a lot today.
Maybe we should start naming political events like college bowl games, say the Verizon South Carolina Republican Primary or the Teamster's International Jersey City School Board Election. (The ruling doesn't immediately apply to state and local elections, but, hey, school boards award a lot of contracts.) Unions, too, have the same First Amendment rights as corporations, merely a lot less money.
Almost needless to say, protected political free speech, unlike commercial speech, can't be regulated for truthfulness either. The people who manufacture Viagra and Cialis are well-advised to warn against the heartbreak of four-hour erections, and forbidden from claiming that the stuff will cure baldness or the common cold. That's fraud.
But if pharmaceutical companies sponsored ads favoring specific political candidates who claimed that cutting corporate income taxes to 2 percent would magically close the nation's budget deficit, which would now be their First Amendment right. It's not unconstitutional to lie.
That said, observing today's Washington, it's difficult to imagine American politicians as a class becoming more in thrall to multinational corporations than they already are. Indeed, last week's decision probably generated as much angst as joy in corporate boardrooms, because next time the candidates come around with their hands out, CEOs can't say, ``Hey, we'd love to help you out, but it's against the law.''
eugenelyons2@yahoo.com
How interesting that our media is once again using their 1st Amendment rights to demand those rights be denied to others.
I don't think the author is very balanced ....
Gene is such a lying drama-queen.
They never mention that this admin told the SCOTUS the law gives them the power to ban books, films, Kindle downloads and other things. You know they would sooner or later expand it to talk radio and the internet.
Sounds like an obama lackey.
The obamaites or moveon types must have sent out a mailing for their nuts to start another one of their letter writing campaigns.
They’re all about free speech for themselves, but not for anyone else.
The commies are spittin mad!
Some examples! GE and Goldman Sachs are the gay lovers of the Democratic Party. They have threesomes in the White House master bedroom.
As long as there is full disclosure, I am ok with it. I am not sure there is anyone else strong enough to stand up to the federal government takeover of the private sector other than corporate giants and individuals who are multibillionaires.
Actually, it seems like allowing corporations to chime in, given that they also may taxes, seems like a no-brain under the constitution.
Better that the government should fear and listen to the people and corporations than government always trying to run over and impose it’s will on everyone and everything. Thank you Supreme Court.
Apparently, no one likes the First Amendment any more, especially cheap media types; so who really wrote this the Grinch or the Cat while the good Doctor was about?
If he pissed off Newt Gingrich then he is A-OK in my book.
How odd (No,not really) that the right of political action committees masquerading as labor unions to engage in partisan political advocacy, financed by coerced dues “contributions,” is not questioned at all.
These people are illiterate!
The 5 Supreme Court Justices just UPHELD the Constitution!!!
Don’t they get it?
Oh, no, they were raised by Liberal Teachers and College Professors who love Che’ and Marx and Mao. THAT’s why they’re so illiterate.
And they wonder why my blood pressure goes up when I read FR.
Corporations are others now? Oh dear...
Personhood to corporations is wrong. If corporations were human beings, they’d be certifiably insane. Conservatives are happy today because they (rightfully) believe the ruling will stick it to the Democrats, whose insane hyper-activism has made money such a factor (unions, Soros, etc.). But in the long run, it will hurt American democracy.
If politicians need to be bought to judge matters affecting the lives of the American people, then it is revolution time. Instead of fixing the problem of money to power, the Court’s decision merely surrendered.
Imagine any important issue. What will the enticement of money (or conversely the threat of financing ones adversary) bring to an honest and principled decision? The same it would bring to a prize fight or a figure skating contest. First there’s just your honest judgment (the way it’s supporsed to be) and then there’s your judgment after the enticement / threat from an entity that by its very definition, its purpose and being has only a profit motive.
Disagree with me? How much cash do you want to change your mind? Feel insulted by such a question? Of course.
How about honorable politicians not being an oxymoron?
Okay, this time around it’ll stick it to the Democrats. Hurray! But Supreme Court decisions aren’t about just now. And if anybody doesn’t understand the corruptive power of money vis-a-vis policy making, then... well, I just don’t know what to say except that the founding fathers would be aghast. They knew honor and just as theists shouldn’t create false gods, humanists shouldn’t create false humans.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Consider the climategate scandal. What made a scientist like Mann come up with the infamous hockey stick instead of sticking to pure an honest science? Moolah (power, career, position).
This is not merely a rightwing / leftwing issue, but a moral one, a matter of principle. Pointing to the hypocrisy of the Democrats might be satisfying, but doesn’t really address the issue. If a driving instructor teaches his students ro buckle up, check the rearview mirror, stop at stop signs, etc. but then on his own time gets drunk and goes drag racing, that doesn’t make what he taught his students false, it just makes him a hypocrite.
Principles, honesty, not bribes!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.