Courting Corporations by the Supreme Court

While the president’s agenda and progressive causes have taken some hits of late, more depressing is the fact that the Democratic base has thrown up its collective hands in despair and anger because its every wish has not been fulfilled post haste.

It isn’t true that there are no differences between the parties as some have begun to claim - - a fact made clear by the recent Supreme Court decision defining corporations as individuals with unfettered rights to make political contributions, a notion second only to the acceptance of cash as an appropriate means of accessing free speech. It shouldn’t have been a surprise that the conservative majority on this court ruled as it did; the two newest Bush appointees were known at the outset to be pro-business. Typically enough, though, much discussion during their confirmation hearings focused on the topic of abortion a far less important consideration than their mercantile bent.

What was surprising in this case, however, was that the court made such a broad ruling when the case before it concerned a film, Hillary, which was not allowed to air on a cable network right before the Democratic presidential primary. Usually the Court addresses specific legal issues or complaints that come before it as a result of previous rulings. But apparently Roberts and his fellow conservatives had been itching to turn back limits on the financing of elections and seized the smaller case to satisfy their activist lust. Sensing perhaps, the public outrage that would attend its decision, Chief Justice Roberts made the disingenuous comment that gee, if ‘established law’ hadn’t been overturned in the past, we’d still have slavery and a host of other civil rights infringements.

In reality this particular decision was more similar than not to previous instances in which justices fumbled around to find justifications for their flawed judgments. In the 1896 Plessey v. Ferguson case for example, the Court ruled discrimination was not a factor because white and black railroad cars gave all riders equal, if separate, access to rail transportation according to their race. Of course separate ‘accommodations’ in the south, whether on trains, bathrooms, schools or housing were anything but equal. Still courts throughout the country found for the illusion citing the “letter of the law” which bore no relation to the lives of actual people, and the concept of “separate but equal” was institutionalized until Brown v. the Board of Education in 1954.

In last week’s ruling the opinion stated, that corporations “are associations of individuals acting as a single person” even though corporations have a set of goals and standards unlike those of most individuals. One used to hear the phrase “company man” but today affiliation to one business concern or another is largely determined by salaries and benefits rather than loyalty per se. And stockholders can hardly be regarded as members of an association except insofar as they seek profit-making ventures. Not all corporations are voter-supported institutions and cannot be said to speak with one voice. They are more precisely “economic entities pursuing certain goals mainly for profit.”

Clearly corporate influence has sullied the conduct of far too many elected officials already without adding another layer of financial overreach. Jamie Raskin, University of Maryland law professor and Maryland state senator points out that the top one hundred U.S. companies have a combined profit of $600 billion; spending even 1% of those profits could have a devastating impact on the outcome of elections even beyond blatant, behind-the-scenes corporate maneuvering. From what source do those associations of individuals supposedly acting as a single person derive their power and what imperatives guide their agenda? Will foreign interests in the global economy begin to have input into our political process as part of the corporate juggernaut?

Congress is working on legislation to try and mitigate the effects of the Court’s ruling. Concerned citizens’ organizations might consider adding a simple message to corporate advertising - - “Does Exxon-Mobil (insert appropriate name) speak for you or does candidate (insert whomever) speak for Exxon-Mobil?”

But on a more basic level respect for our highest court continues on a downward spiral that began with the Bush v. Gore ruling in the 2000 presidential race. The ‘rule of law’ isn’t just a collection of words; it is supposed to mean something and have relevance in the conduct of our daily lives. It shouldn’t be co-opted by activist ideologues on the bench who claim constitutional neutrality but rule otherwise.