The Umpire is feeling his oats.
Yesterday, less than two months after the Supreme Court overturned federal campaign laws and multiple prior decisions reflecting century-old understandings, in a speech at the University of Alabama, self-proclaimed minimalist, Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that it is "very troubling" to have "the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according to the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless."
Setting aside Justice Alito's rather unique take on the art of "expressionless," since when is it "very troubling" for the President to criticize the Court face-to-face during the State of the Union, but kosher for the Chief Justice to criticize the President in a speech on a campus in Alabama?
Roberts continued that "the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally. " Hello? The State of the Union is---by design, not degeneration---always a political pep rally.
Roberts' speech indicates that while unlimited corporate billions are, after his Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, newly essential to democracy, apparently a thick skin is not.
Suffice it to say that at this point, there is little doubt that Roberts' 2005 statement, "My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat" was 100 percent job application, zero percent job description. But past is prologue, so more importantly, let us pause for a moment to update the apparently inverted First Amendment lessons of our youth:
Or, if you prefer, balls and strikes out, swinging for the fences, in.
Thomas Hobbes ascribed to mankind a "perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death." Of course, if Hobbes had sought Senate confirmation he would have marketed himself as Ghandi. After all, life tenure trumps breach of warranty every time.
Last night, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who knows full well that in these partisan times, concern over corporate green is one of the few issues on which red and blue agree, responded to Roberts' comments by noting that, "[w]hat is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections, drowning out the voices of average Americans."
In 2008, ExxonMobil's PAC raised $950,434 in voluntary political contributions from its managers, employees and shareholders---all of whom could, like any citizen, also spend in their individual capacities. Indeed, in 2008, corporate PACs combined raised a total of approximately $150 million for contested congressional races.
By comparison, as one brief in the case noted, in "that same election cycle, ExxonMobil's profits were $85 billion, or more than 560 times the amount raised by all corporate political action committees ("PACs") combined." Keep in mind that the $150 million figure counts only direct fundraising, aimed expressly at supporting candidates for office. It doesn't even scratch the surface of corporate expenditures to influence the political process, including lobbying. Nor, as Jason Linkins wrote in an eye-popping article on this site, does $150 million in one cycle even begin to compare to the corporate treasuries now available for use in elections.
The numbers reflect what the public already knows. The political world prior to Citizens United was hardly lacking the corporate perspective. Do corporations have rights? Of course. But they are also creatures of the state, which is why Dahlia Lithwick aptly described Citizens United as the Supreme Court's "Pinnochio Project." Corporations don't go to jail; don't face execution; don't vote; do have eternal life; and are different from regular citizens in all sorts of meaningful ways, particularly when it comes to matters of political process. Perhaps, in light of the ongoing census, in the new civics paradigm, Delaware should have more congressional seats than California?
Among others on the right, Teddy Roosevelt and Roberts' predecessor, William Rehnquist, supported the old limits. For that matter, TR, in addition to believing strongly in the "old paradigm" First Amendment, was also famously tough. Accordingly, I highly doubt that he would have been "very troubled" by a President criticizing a Court decision during the State of the Union.
The good news is that among living Supreme Court justices, the vote is not 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, but rather 6-5 against. The bad news is that Justice Souter isn't leaving his cabin in the woods and Justice Alito isn't Justice O'Connor. Worse, the so-called umpire is enough to make moderates and progressives long for those bygone salad days . . . of William Rehnquist . . . or Teddy Roosevelt. Alas, not being corporations themselves, neither of them had eternal life.
Speaking of TR, someone new is carrying the big stick. And while perhaps a bit sensitive, he is absolutely wielding it at the plate.
The day a corporate charter picks up a rifle and defends it's country, or sits in a jury box is the day I will agree it is a citizen!
Done!
I think that as long as we the people are able to know when corporations are sponsoring political speech then we have the ability to vote for or against the candidate whose campaign is financed by the oil company.
What is alarming to me is the guy who said we should simply trust the President because he was a constituional lawyer. Don't you realize that the justices were constitutional lawyers as well?
While you are correct, each individual within an organization has free speech and they are free to gather in support of whatever issue the want to speak about the organization itself has no rights, because it is not a citizen.
It is ridiculous to view corporate money as free speech, because it amplifies the voices of the few disproportionally to the many. And if a corporation spends $150 million to pursue an issue, as the corporation, are they doing so with the full support of all the members of that corporation? Or just the few?
Regardless, a for profit corporation's goal is the pursuit of profit. That is the goal and allowing them to spend billions to influence elections, candidates and legislation, eliminates the voices of citizens who cannot bring billions of dollars to bear.
That leaves America a Plutocratic Oligarchy.
Mcain fiengold was a law created by congress to specifically to limit free speech. The court was correct to strike that law down.
The first amendment prohibits Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", or impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.
Your free to say whatever you wish, however it is a stretch to suggest that Exxon can spend a billion dollars to influence candidates and legislation favorable to it's profits is even close to the same thing.
He didn't say the court rendered an opinion contrary to the US constitution. He was innordinantly respectful in criticizing the impacts of the decision instead.
And controlling those impacts can be legislated in ways that do not involve free speech rights. Maybe the court will voerturn those as well but the legislature and president have the right to attempt to meet the citizens desires for a fair and open political process.
Otherwise - activism is 'good'.
Shows your utter disregard for logic, or facts in evidence.....
The reasons corporations wont spend all their profits on an election, there is a thing called shareholders. they want their profits and dividends.
People are what form corporations. People have the right to form associations, and the right to free speech. This was the correct decision. NBC, FOX, and the new york times should be free to give political opinions and tell people who to vote for and spend millions upon millions of dollars of air time to do so. But Exxon shouldnt be able to give their money to a candidate? Please. This doesnt even pass the laugh test.
People are what form corporations but corporations don't always act in the best interest of those people. Take a look around. The recent economic collapse was directly caused by corporate influence on our government- you think this won't get worse.
Wake up and see what's happening to our country- voters do not have a voice special interests do. With more money in the system corporations have more influence. Our government is for sale.
chicken little, the sky is not falling.
Regardless... why don't they speak for themselves individually... or get together in mutually formed groups in which everyone is absolutely sure where everyone stands?
Corporate personhood was one of the most ridiculous legal arguments of all time. It just goes to show that even a century and a half ago, lawyers and judges could be slimy.
What pro-business people like about it is that it puts the rights of a big "person" over that of little people (real people). Because if people actually had to speak for themselves... they'd have to take into account their morals, their duties, their humanity... they'd have to think about it all in context of all their other concerns.
When corporate "persons" make decisions... no thought. The answer is already there. They are legally obligated to make profit for shareholders no matter what the costs to others.
I guess we need a little more empathy, huh John? Can I call you John, or do you prefer Supreme Being?