 |
||
The normally closed Supreme Court opened a crack last week, as Clarence Thomas defended the 5-4 decision clearing away limits on corporate spending to influence elections.
"If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group," he said, "you'd say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association." And "if all of you formed a partnership," it would be the same.
Then he asks rhetorically, "But what if you put yourself in corporate form?" He implies the answer would not change. "It's wrong," he argues, to make any distinction. The "ultimate precedent is the Constitution."
But, Justice Thomas, democracy itself depends on our making distinctions about who can influence political decisions, as the Court has done for many decades. (What about the 1933 Hatch Act curtailing political activity by government employees?)
And the most critical distinctions?
If I speak out as a citizen, or join with others and decide "to speak, just as a group," I am choosing to further democratic decision making by adding my voice. Democracy's foundation is the belief that citizens are able to deliberate and choose what is best for society as a whole. And indeed Americans often vote with this goal foremost--voting what they think is right, not necessarily in their narrow self-interest.
But if I form a corporation, or own shares in one, my purpose is utterly different. Partly, I seek to shield myself against personal financial liability and to enjoy other legal advantages for financial gain. These very different purposes and protections are among the reasons a corporation is not a citizen, nor is it a group of citizens; and why it cannot vote or sit on a jury, for example.
How can democracy permit an entity that cannot itself vote to have the power to sway voters and power over what a candidate might dare to say without risking a billion-dollar backlash?
You argue the Constitution is the "ultimate precedent." But the Constitution doesn't mention corporations, at the time they didn't exist as independent entities. Within a few decades many founders, including Thomas Jefferson began to see how corporate power could subvert democracy. "I hope [that] we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations," Jefferson said, "which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country." It seems inconceivable that founders would approve the corporate influence in elections that you have just approved.
You suggest that the Supreme Court majority is expanding freedom and core democratic values.
No.
The Court's decision threatens my freedom to know that my purchases and investments don't fund a corporation's political speech to defeat my values. But this is the least of my freedoms lost.
The decision undermines my choice to be part of a democracy in which each of us can be heard, a voice not overwhelmed by entities whose resources rival those of whole nations, and whose interests lie not in a healthy democracy but in enhancing their markets. The Court's decision also helps to deprive me of the freedom to choose among a range of political candidates far wider than those favored by our society's vast concentrations of wealth. In a word, it deprives me of the very essence of democracy itself--effective voice and choice.
Citizens stunned by this assault on democracy are devising a range of response. Listening to them, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), for example, is pursuing legislation to require broad consent by shareholders before a corporation can engage in political spending
Many Americans feel powerless in the face of such loss. We are not. One immediate step we can take right now step is to ensure passage of the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act--S.752, H.R.1826. It establishes a workable system of small donations combined with voluntary public financing for congressional races. It builds on an approach that's already proven itself in three states. (Watch this inspiring example of its impact.) The Fair Elections approach has not been blocked by the Supreme Court. While it can't avert all the threats embodied in the Count's decision, it enables a candidate to run for office without becoming beholden to corporate money.
That is huge.
So let's not allow the Justices' dangerous logic to undermine democratic decision making America needs now more than ever. We can commit to choosing elected leaders who grasp what we've lost and would seat justices eager to reclaim the long precedent shielding us from this travesty. Right now, we can press our representatives to support the Fair Elections Now Act. We can back the excellent work, for example, of Change Congress Now, YouStreet, and Publicampaign.org.
Follow Frances Moore Lappe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fmlappe
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This ruling is to me the most seriously wrong ruling in my half a century on the planet. I think it is ironic that some people view this is terms of Republican or Democrat "win" or "loss". Has anyone thought about the fact we have absolutely no control over the ideology of corporations? The shareholder's don't. The employees don't. The consumers of the product or service don't. The CEO and the board controls the decisions of the corporation. Billions and billion in the hands of a few. I know of no law that says to be a CEO or a member of the board has to be American. It is a fairly simple matter to start a US corporation. Hey I have in the past. The only tiny little glimmer of hope is that this decision is so obviously flawed that people wake up. It is very short term thinking on anyone part to think this decision will help funnel money to a certain ideology. We have absolutely no idea where corporations will find profits in the future and what will be the cause the corporations will champion. None. Zero.
This goes way beyond challenging democracy. This is the end of America as we knew it. This is Biffworld, the start of a painful alternative existence for Americans where the few get everything and the rest get less than scraps. There will be no stopping the rapid decline and fall of this country.
I am for Free Speech. Therefore I propose we do not stop big money ads, but that we limit the total purchase of ads per media to 1% per organization or individual. This preserves EVERYBODY"S right to purchase speech.
Get all candidates to sign a legally binding contract to
Outlaw all political Contributions for the Obvious Bribery they are,
Mandate Free prime time and a travel budget for all the candidates who get the signatures to be on the Ballot.
Bring Democracy to the USA!
This alone is probably enough to strip the plutocracy of most of it's power over the republic, since candidates will always be able to respond to whatever attack ads go out, without paying a dime, without raising money instead of telling people what they stand for.
America was founded by Liberals fighting for a Democratic Republics and Enlightenment against Conservatism.
Both parties are run by conservatives, though the GOP is much worse these days.
Conservatism is still dedicated to destroying the Republic and selling it to the Plutocracy.
Both Democrats the Republicans were originally founded as Liberal parties FOR "representative democratic republic" and Enlightenment of the Citizens.
We Democrats and the Few real Republicans around should be working together against Conservatism, the real threat.
I sure hope that another good person gets added to the SCOTUS soon.
partnerships are democratic; corporations are not - once an executive is elected their is word is law, a unitary executive. that fact that CT is unable to make that distinction is soberingly scary. each time this clown opens his mouth a little more crazy comes out.
Even Scalia acknowledges that Thomas is a radical. Thomas does not believe in stare decisis or precedent, at least in connection with any prior ruling with which he does not agree. He seems to believe that he is smarter than any previous justice.
I carry no water for Thomas or Stevens or anyone in between. But I'd note that if it weren't for disregarding stare decisis, you wouldn't have overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson. Sometimes old cases that were improperly decided need to be overturned in favor of the older precedent - the Constitution.
You can make up your own mind about whether or not the viewpoint is correct, but stare should never overrule respect for the Constitution as amended.
Again, the "conservatives" on the SC act in the best interests of the Republican Party and its corporate clients, and trot out this or that "legal" or "constitutional" justification as an afterthought. Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas have and always will side with the corporatists because they are ideologically predisposed to do so, which is why they were appointed in the first place. Legal arguments and the Constitution have little to do with it. Their job, as they see it, is to expand corporate power, making corporations super-citizens capable of perverting what little democracy we still may enjoy, and rendering individual citizens powerless by comparison. If corporations were mental patients, they would be diagonosed sociopaths
Oops. "Stare Decisis, to boot" should be "Per Curiam, to boot." My bad.
Two big disagreements.
First, you do not have any "freedom to know that my purchases and investments don't fund a corporation's political speech to defeat my values." That's hyperbole. You have the freedom to be a customer or not for any given corporation. You can't dictate how they spend the money you give them as long as it's legal.
Second, curtailing private spending will likely severely impair candidate diversity, not improve it as you claim. At the moment only the 2 big parties get any news coverage, any detailed discussion. The only way that 3rd party candidates have managed to gat a microphone is by being able to buy the time. I can't imagine how a 3rd party candidate could some day compete with the Democratic and GOP machines without being able to get private money.
Campaign finance laws already are crushing small fringe or 3rd party candidates - mainly because they are so complex, so multi-faceted that you need a huge staff of lawyers to make sure you don't inadvertently break the law. This shouldn't surprise anyone - the law was written by the two major parties who are driven by keeping power.
I understand the scary side of this, but I am more afraid of the Government setting up rules to prevent anyone else from saying anything bad about it. Remember, Citizens United was a small group of people, not a megacorporation. Think hard about unintended consequences when you craft legislation that gives government more power.
Yeah, much better to give corporations virtually unlimited political power. That's the underlying theme behind the SC decision and attempts to justify it. Government of, by and for the corporations with the wealth and power to pervert it toward their own ends. This explains why alleged "conservatives" are forever railing against and trying to weaken government, and defending the concentration of power in corporations. They are but devotedly serving the wishes of their ideological masters--their self-appointed betters. If wealth and power are indeed free speech, then a relative few have a lot more free speech than others. Now why would someone not of that class defend that?
How can someone have more free speech than someone else?
You are assuming something that may or may not be true. That is that a corporate entity cannot vote. If you have corporate personhood then the corporation can cast a vote. The only reason you are assuming this is that no one has tried it. Form a corporation, go to a resgistration facility and apply, if you are turned down the sue in terms that you are a person. Take it to the Supremes. They are then in the quandry of having to define a limited set of rights for this entitiy person. If they do that then they are opening themselves up to a challenge and if they don't then everyone in the US can make themselves a corporation and vote once for themselves and once for the corporation.
To defeat your enemy first become one with them.
The majority of people who seem to find fault with this SCOTUS decision claim, that because a corporation is motivated by economic gain and not the best interest of our country or its people, is somehow a determining factor in whether or not they are entitled to the freedoms the 1st amendment guarantees. Why is a groups motivation a determining factor in whether or not they are entitled the rights under the first amendment? We allow other groups the right to advocate their beliefs, whose motives are not in our countries or its people interest, like the neo-Nazi white surprimisist who racist rhetoric is protected. Then you have the media and hollywood who have the same motives of any other corporation, economic success, why is there no outcry to limit their freedom of expression. The 1st amendment was not intended to protect only the whispers of the little people but also the roars of the giants.
The fallacy here is that the Bill of Rights applies to We the People, ie human beings. The whole doctrine of corporate personhood is a very distorted interpretation of the Constitution. Corporations are not people: they don't die, they don't go to jail (no matter how many people they kill), they can't hold office. Corporations are artificial creations, period.
Actually if you read the specific text of the first amendment, it is a limitation on Congress's ability to make laws that restrict speech. It says nothing about who or what is allowed to speak. There are sections of the Constitution and amendments that refer to "people" or "citizens" (like the amendments on who can vote, or "the right of the people to freely assemble"), but not for speech.
I would submit that the more distorted interpretation of the Constitution (to use your words) would be the one where you add your own intent on top of the clear text. The more conservative (small c) interpretation is that it means what it says, and no more. And if it does not say something, then by default the right goes to the people and their private lives/enities and not to the Federal Government (see amendment X).
Justice Thomas wasn't appointed to reason about anything, Scalia just needed a crony.
Look, there's nothing to be done; this Congress isn't changing anything, and the next voting cycles will all be determined by protest votes because Obama has shown us the paucity of hope in the election process, and the only thing a voter can do is protes by voting against incumbents. But we all know whoever gets elected will prove more-of-the-same.
Without a strong congress and a strong president, confrontation with the SC, within Washington, is not possible.
What is needed now is for State governments to hammer corporations on this with laws and regulations and taxes - the corporations will respond with suits which then will carry into the Supreme Court over and over, until the 'Justices' - if we can use the term so loosely - will either overturn their decision or so modify it so that is applies to nothing real.
Well, this decision will help challengers take on incumbents as it will close the funding gap for candidates without immediate name recognition.
States won't go after business like that because business won't file suit, they will pack up and go to a more welcoming environment.
This decision benefits any who take corporation bribes. As for corporations crossing state lines, maybe the states should start hammering on them for that two.
Legal mediocrity in the form of Justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are what you get when you elect corrupt corporate puppets like Bush 43 and Bush 41. Going all the way back to Strom Thurmond, who promised Nixon the Presidential nomination in eachange for the right to name any Supreme Court nominees during Nixon's administration (Lewis Powell), powerful interests have always known what the average American consistently overlooks: That long after a mediocre President is gone, his mediocre or -worse yet - biased SCOTUS nominees will continue his, or their own, agenda; to the harm of the nation. We are reaping whirlwind of nominations by 41 and 43.
+
It might be usefull to pay the Justices decent money if you want the best man for the job.
+
Some say the roughly 200K that they get is enough, but a low level government contractor easily makes as much.
+
Top legal mind should be worth at least 1 million - and that is cheap - especially when you consider the cost of one bad judgment.
+
Being a Supreme Court Justice has plenty of perks that go along with it, don't let the $200k per year salary fool you. Also, never underestimate the appeal of power and respect.
Also, contrary to what you're saying, most of the justices ARE top legal minds, with one exception (cough Thomas - an insult to the legacy of Thurgood Marshall whom he replaced). Scalia is brilliant, Roberts is very talented, and I don't know much about Alito, but I have to imagine he aspires to be the next Scalia. The problem isn't their legal prowess, it's their philosophies.
Corporations have a conscious similar to "mob" mentality. The interest of the corporation is in and of itself. Ultimately irrespective of it's executives, employees and even it's shareholders. Left unchecked/
did any the pro-corporates actually read this:
"I hope [that] we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations," Jefferson said, "which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country."
You really need to think hard whether you want your democracy regulating you capitalism or your capitalism regulating your democracy.
This decision uses the First Amendment to destroy -- the First Amendment. We have to ask ourselves: why is freedom of speech a good idea? The founders believed in a "free market of ideas." They reasoned as follows: If all ideas are heard, then there is a better chance that good ideas, as opposed to fashionable ones, or conventional ones, will become public policy. Ergo, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". But when ideas become backed by money, they become commerce, and there is ample legal precedent to show that Congress can regulate election spending.
Not only that, but when ideas become commerce, the wealthiest ideas, those backed by money power, can drive the less wealthy ideas from the marketplace, just as big corporations can eliminate their smaller competitors in the economic marketplace. We have anti-trust laws for the economic world. Where are the anti-trust laws for ideas? Just as concentration of the press in a few hands has restricted freedom of the press, so will concentration of political ideas in the hands of a few big corporations lead to restrictions in freedom of speech.
Corporations should be entitled to the same freedom of speech that unions enjoy.
Please. Get your scale right. Unions represent a very tiny slice of economic power compared to the profits of corporations. They are organized for different reasons than corporations and are representative of their membership ( for the most part.) Politics aside, your argument does not address the fundamental question of corporate personhood.
Money is a megaphone; it is not speech itself. Corporations are not people, they are economic organizations.
You're right. Both of them should be regulated extensively when it comes to political advertising.
The difference here is that FOREIGN corporations can now contribute
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
