Whatever else one believes about the Supreme Court's decision striking down limits on corporate speech in the context of political campaigns, there's one thing no credible commentator could assert: That money bought this result. We can disagree with the Court's view of the Framers (and I do); we can criticize its application of stare decisis (as any honest lawyer should); and we can stand dumbfounded by its tone-deaf understanding of the nature of corruption (as anyone living in the real world of politics must). But we cannot say that somehow, the influence of money has produced this extraordinary result. The Court jealously guards its own institutional integrity. Two hundred years of careful doctrine, defining the economy of influence under which it does its work, has produced an institution whose decisions we can disagree with strongly, but whose integrity we can't fairly doubt. Maybe liberal or conservative politics sometimes gets too much mixed with constitutional law. But money is no where even close.
Thursday's decision by the Supreme Court denies to Congress the same institutional integrity enjoyed by the Court. The vast majority of Americans already believe that money buys results in Congress. This Court's decision will only make that worse. The Wall Street bailouts, the caving to insurance and pharmaceutical interests in health care reform, the ability of coal companies to stop Congress from addressing even profoundly important questions like global warming leads most to the view that it isn't reason or even constituent politics that determines what Congress does or doesn't do. It is instead the siren of campaign funding. Now a second siren walks onto that stage, promising, ever so indirectly, more campaign support from corporate treasuries. Who could doubt that this will further distract Members of Congress from what their constituents want? And who could believe it won't make Americans even more cynical about what Congress does?
The institutional integrity of Congress is already at a historical low. Less than one quarter of Americans have faith in this institution. Three times that have faith in the Supreme Court. If there's such a thing as political bankruptcy, then Congress is bankrupt. More Americans likely supported the British Crown at the time of the revolution than support our Congress today.
Yet despite the Court's decision, there is still one possible way that Congress could redeem itself. Following the examples of Arizona, Maine and Connecticut, Congress could enact a voluntary, opt-in system of Citizen Funded Elections that would give Members the chance to run for office without this integrity-destroying dependency on private campaign cash. One bill currently introduced in Congress would give candidates a grubstake to fund their campaigns, plus the freedom to raise unlimited amounts of money in $100 contributions or less. In exchange, Members would give up the bundling of large contributions by the buyers of influence.
This change alone might not be enough to restore faith in this failing institution. The rumblings in favor of a constitutional amendment, or even a convention to consider a range of amendments, are growing. The fears that private money will overwhelm even an adequately funded public system are fair.
But fear of failure is no reason not to act, quickly and forcefully, to restore the integrity that this central institution of American democracy has lost. For whatever else the Framers were trying to do, they were not trying to establish a comedy at the core of their democracy. Nor the tragedy that this Congress has become.
Visit change-congress.org to learn more.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
Second, he didn't participate in the public campaign finance system for his presidential run because he rightly said that system was broken. The solution is not to make politicians participate in a flawed system, but to make it in their interest to participate. If we had an adequately funded presidential system, as we presently do not, then politicians will willingly partake and relieve themselves of the burdens of constant fundraising.
It's my understanding that the administration supports citizen funded elections. But we have to have a system that works if politicians are going to opt-in to it. To paraphrase from Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid: if they paid me as much as they're paying them to stop me from robbing him, I'd stop robbing him.
I know we all need to be speaking with one voice to oppose this democracy-killing decision. Widespread negative reaction to it can be found at WakingPlanet.blogspot.com and I also will be documenting the organizations fighting this and how we can act to protect our democracy. Also check out the photo-shopped picture of SCOTUS there.
Liberals can't believe they lost fair and square. Ever.
I agree with you except for the reality that stare decisis is one of the most destructive thing in our legal system and we need to stop accepting it at the SCOTUS level. At this level, they must decide based on the actual Constitution, not based on a pile of decisions which may or may not have been decided properly and generally sum together to create a gross violation of the Constitution.
They must also disregard any damage created by defeating a law. Or else the Constitution will not be served. Because, as you imply, it's CONGRESS that is the problem. Not SCOTUS overturning bad law. Or even a "good" law that is not, itself, legal.
Why? I think it is quite possible that money bought this result. These supreme court justices knew exactly what they were doing. If they believed in this country as a democracy, then I do not see how they could have done this; unless they were on the take.
It is looking to me like the President of the United States is for sale. Why should we not believe the supreme court is for sale?
Recently, grave concerns about the integrity of our court system and it's judicial independence have been raised by massive corporate donations to judicial election campaigns. Elections of judges have been raised into a partisan political sphere that has never been seen before. Corporations can even now buy and have corruptly bought the election campaigns of judges to rule in their favor on appeal in particular cases, as happened in John Grisham’s latest legal thriller, The Appeal, which borrowed its story of a judge captured by a wealthy local businessman from the facts of the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., which recently made its way from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.
See http://www.hlrecord.org/news/scholars-take-on-corruption-in-judicial-elections-1.1011474
Now corporations are released from any judicial restraint to buy the election of judges that it requires to overturn unfavorable decisions of a trial court.
Well said.
"...but whose integrity we can't fairly doubt. Maybe liberal or conservative politics sometimes gets too much mixed with constitutional law. But money is no where even close."
Their partisan appointments were all made and confirmed by money-influenced presidents and politicians. They were chosen for their "conservative" or "liberal" views rather than their incomparable legal wisdom.
It seems to me, their fealty to the party principles of those who appointed them is nakedly visible to anyone and is a terrible indictment of their "integrity."
...if we are to accept that limits on corporate campaign spending were removed because the First Amendment trumps potential abuses like pay-for-play, irresponsible claims or ad inundation, we must reconsider the whole idea of money and speech during elections.
The corps will now be able to find, groom and fund candidates openly. Ronald McDonald for President and free Big Macs at registration locations. McNews will prune reality and SmearCorp will exist only to generate attack propaganda round-the-clock.
Today's weak slander and libel laws will not be able to compete with ads that for example superimpose a candidates' face into photos of children being murdered, shown the day before an election. The corp will say it was an interpretive metaphor for his policies.
Even if the candidate sued and won for defamation, it would all be too late and oh, sorry, there's no more money left in the corporation which by definition protects officers from being sued personally.
let's tax 'em that way.No corporate tax breaks.
The people that should be charged are the officers of the corporation, not the stock owners.
There is precedence for this. Going after the stock holders would be just plain bad. It would make people afraid to invest and they have essentially no control what so ever of the corporation except at annual (presumably) stock holder meetings. Even then its only a vote for board members and other high level people.
I just do not understand how the Supreme Court could not see the consequences of this AND I am sure we do not know the total implications of this.
This ruling just sold the U.S. down the drain and has long term consequences which may end up in a revolution.
and its unrelenting drive to provide Fourteenth Amendment protections to corporations. The notion is wrong headed, anti-democratic and destructive of the guiding principle of government that all persons are equal under the law.
There is an old ethnic saying that to win in politics you gotta have the geetus. This right wing reactionary Court once again put the stamp of approval on payoff money politics by reinforcing the anti-democratic decisions of the past.
The voracious brand of T-rex capitalism practiced in this country, the kind of capitalism that benefits a tiny minority by overthrowing the will of the vast majority, will continue to dominate at all levels of government thanks to this decision. The destructive nature of American capitalism, apparent in the present economy as the decimation of the middle class continues unabated, now has the blessing of the Supreme Court.
The concept of equality of individuals has finally been abandoned. CEOs, backed by the overwhelming power of the corporation, will continue to direct the affairs of government.
The correct interpretation of the First Amendment is that a CEO is an individual entitled to the right of free speech in the same manner that all individuals in this country are granted that right. By its decision, the Court has perverted the intent of the free speech clause of our most cherished amendment.
Fanned for eloquence and clarity of thought :)
ultimately would end up in the creation of a new nation of helots. It is sad to realize that the extinction of the American middle class will not be the result of some rogue meteor hurtling
in from outer space or of a volcano that blew its top or a hideous genetically engineered
pestilence that escaped from some laboratory. It instead will be the permanent effect of
unenlightened policy, a total betrayal of the enlightened principles that the framers of our democracy endorsed.
If this idea of corporations as individuals is taken to (almost) logical absurdity, then corporations will have to be given the vote and allowed to serve on juries. For that matter, they must be allowed to run for office. Other wise, we restrict their liberties as individuals.
It's completely irrelevant. Corporations and labor unions were already free to create or contribute to PACs, as are any individuals or groups who wish to do so. What this ruling allows is for corporations to unleash the might of their treasuries on the electoral process, and there is simply nothing that can compete with their financial resources. We already saw that when the health insurance cartel spent upwards of $640 million on derailing and obstructing the HCR bill. Labor unions and the public simply cannot compete with Corporate America when it comes to funding, so this ruling erases the idea of democracy and makes a mockery of the concept of free speech.
Americans of all political stripes will not stand for this and the activist justices of the SCOTUS have made a big mistake if they believe they can shamelessly be complicit in this blatant sellout.
Just like lemmings going over a cliff. What a sad time to be an American.