The Supreme Court ruled last week that corporations could spend as much money as they want in elections, thereby making most existing restrictions on corporate election spending unconstitutional. This raises the prospect of US politics becoming even more corrupt than it already is. It will now be totally legal for Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, or any other major corporation to spend endless amounts of money to elect politicians who will drain taxpayers' pockets to enhance their profits. This is not good for democracy.
However, if the court has ruled that Congress can't limit political spending by corporations, then it can always go the other direction and redefine corporations. The court effectively said that corporations have the same rights as individuals in the political sphere.
But corporations are creations of the government. The economic privileges granted to corporations are set by governments, not by the Constitution and certainly not by nature. Specifically, the limited liability of the shareholders in a corporation is a special privilege that governments grant to corporations.
Because of limited liability, the individuals that own a corporation can poison our water, sell dangerous products to our kids or cripple their workers and not pay for the damage they have caused because the government limits their liability to the value of the stock they own. While there may be good economic arguments for giving corporations the privilege of limited liability, there certainly is no moral or legal argument that corporations, or more properly their shareholders, must be granted this privilege.
This allows for a simple route around the Supreme Court's ruling. Consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling, corporations can be given the right to engage in whatever political activity they wish. However, to get the benefit of limited liability, a corporation would have to sign away its right to take part in election campaigns. It could not contribute to political campaigns, engage in any lobbying efforts on legislation or appointees or take out issue ads.
In effect, to get the privilege of limited liability, corporations would have to give up their political rights in the same way that insurance companies often require people to give up their right to sue and instead submit to binding arbitration. Everyone still has the right to sue, but not in the cases where they have explicitly surrendered this right to the insurance company. Similarly, corporations still have the full right to take part in political activity, but not if they have surrendered this right in order to gain the privilege of limited liability.
There is actually precedent for exactly this sort of restriction in the law. Tax-exempt organizations are severely restricted in their ability to support candidates, lobby legislatures, or in other ways take part in the political process. This is not viewed as a restriction on freedom of speech; it is simply a condition of getting tax-exempt status. These organizations are free to engage in as much political activity as they like, but not when they are benefiting from tax-exempt status.
There is no reason that the government can't apply the same rules to the political conduct of corporations as it does to tax-exempt organizations. They can do whatever they like, but not when they benefit from the privilege of limited liability.
Unfortunately, Congress is not likely to rein in corporate behavior in this way. The problem is not a legal one; the problem is that US politics are already so corrupt that any measure restricting the ability of corporations to interfere in the political process is almost a joke in political circles. Members of Congress who pushed such measures would have been targeted with a flood of money coming indirectly from corporate coffers even before the Supreme Court ruling. Now that the court has outlawed most of the restrictions that did exist, this flood will be almost unstoppable.
Unless we can do something to reverse the direction of politics in the United States, the burden that the wealthy and corporate America impose on the rest of society will grow ever larger. And we should be very clear: this has absolutely zero to do with free markets and free speech. This is entirely about writing the rules so that the rich can rip off the rest of us.
Loading comments… 
Additional
They are not equal to regular individual
...For example: the dialogues on HP comment pages are often dragged down by those who have no purpose BUT to drag down the dialogue, and the reason those "saboteurs
This structural social trap... I can't describe it right... it's everywhere
If corporatio
Which is something they already have. With death being the end of everything and all.
From this perspectiv
Here's why: what exactly do you think is the analog of a coporate rip-off based on limited liability? It's the prudential calculus of citizens resulting in the efficiency of trespassin
I am NOT going to make explicit what exactly it is that becomes a legitimate target of trespassin
But if you're able to add 2+2=4 you know what it is.
We must repeal Corporate "personhoo
Scalia would refer to himself as an "Originali
How much more harm will we allow him and his dangerous cabal do to America..?
Wasn't Bush V. Gore enough...w
Starting from an extremely strong economic and fiscal position in the year 2000, with surpluses running far into the future in the federal budget and a highly positive outlook for its ability to handle its future pension and health obligation
Taxes were lowered sharply for well-off and other taxpayers, while government expenditur
More of the legacy of GWB?
Well, after all he did say it will take maybe 40 years or more for his legacy to prove that bankruptin
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY !!!!!! URGENT !!!!! IMPORTANT !!!!!!!!
The supreme court ruling actually reduces the number of comanies that can contribute
Statute 2 USC & 441e prohibits foreign interventi
The Citizens united ruling defines corporatio
Therefore Legally any corporatio
I do belie ve this also applies to subsidieri
In its ARROGANCE to rule beyond the boundaries of the case case the Supreme court has actually shot itself in the foot by defining a corporatio
Please pass this informatio
C'mon, all you decent Huffpo reading attorneys-
http://eye
yep, sure.
After over 43 years of paying taxes to various government entities, and watching how they spend it, I think not.
Wake up! YOU can vote for representa
A government on the other hand, is national and has natural boundaries
What we have is a corporate fascist government
This economic system is not God given nor an outcome of evolution. It is the product of powerful influences
BTW, dominant mode of existence on earth: cooperatio
Our economic system is still 75% consumer-d
Since it's obvious that those union wages bolstered the whole economy during the 50s-70s, there must be another reason for the denial of the wanna-bes struggling to attain that elite identity. Since contract law is useful to corporatio
Why are the conservati
I thought amendments to the constituti
It is crazy to say that restrictio
To begin with, corporatio
Corporate political ads are likte tobacco or whiskey ads because the corporatio
Why haven't any of the bankers who caused the crash of our financial system been called to account for their actions? Because their lobbies had been so effective in gutting regulation that they probably broke no laws while causing more than $13T of economic damage to the American people.
Are the justices who bent the law like a pretzel to come up with this decision unaware of the likely outcomes or do they see the likely outcomes as desirable?
I pick door number two.