Dissonance and emotion drive the issues in our public discourse almost as much, if not more so, than the facts.
We talk about the Tea Party movement as if it has a momentum -- based largely on emotion -- that could surpass the third party efforts of H. Ross Perot's Reform Party in 1992 or Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in 1912. While I maintain the Tea Party will be a short-lived endeavor, I do not believe emotion is a political philosophy that can be sustained; I do applaud their efforts to be part of the public discourse.
Those who take the Constitution seriously ought to borrow a page from their Tea Party brothers and sister's playbook by demonstrating a little sustained anger over the U.S Supreme Court's recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.
Citizens United is the most significant campaign finance decision since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
This decision allows corporations and labor unions to participate in the political process in a more direct way placing its constitutional rights to political speech on par with the individual. But any ruling that enhances the speech of corporations and labor unions diminishes the speech of the individual.
I'm sorry, but there is something about, "We the corporation (or we organized labor) of the United States in order to form a more perfect union" that just doesn't possess the same reverence.
Historically, corporations have been banned from making direct contributions to federal candidates since 1907; a similar ban was placed on labor in 1943. Prior to the Citizens United decision, corporations and labor unions could not underwrite "express advocacy" -- speech that advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate.
The ramifications of this decision are far reaching. Given that approximately 80 percent of state judges are elected, as former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently opined the foundation has been laid to dismantle any possibility of an independent judiciary.
Many of my liberal friends see the ruling as bad news for Democrats; I see it as good news for incumbency. More corporate latitude on political spending will create the Faustian bargain that enhances incumbency by exacting a price that increases the influence of lobbying.
This will keep elected officials within the strict parameters of corporate interests. We cannot begin to fathom the indirect impact of this decision. The deep-pocket corporate self-interest will invariably be in tension with the interest of Main Street -- its unavoidable.
The tentacles of corporate interest more concerned with profits and P/E ratio will unduly influence the major issues of the day be it war, health care, immigration, the economy, or the deficit. Moreover, the potential of this ruling does not bode well for those who find themselves on society's margin.
The other problem presented by the Citizens United ruling--anything passed by Congress to counter it beyond tinkering around the edges has already been deemed unconstitutional. This leaves the people with only one arduous path to pursue.
Those who cherish the freedoms embedded in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, in light of the Citizens United decision, have no other choice than seek to amend the Constitution so that the free political speech rights of the individual return to the preeminent status in our republic that was the original intent of the Founders.
I don't take this recommendation lightly. A constitutional amendment is a difficult task -- it should be. Moreover, the prerequisite for change in America is that is must always start as the minority opinion.
But I can't think of another alternative that will keep this issue on the public's conscience. To this point, Justice Samuel Alito, one of the architects of the Citizens United decision, has the distinction of perhaps showing the most emotion when he publicly took umbrage with President Obama's criticism at the State of the Union address.
If the current trend holds, Citizen United will simply be a topic for a few constitutional scholars and a smattering of liberals to bemoan at dinner parties.
Abraham Lincoln was right at Gettysburg, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." But government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, I'm not so sure that has any lasting value.
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
