The Source of Corporate Power
BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
By Robert C. Koehler
“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The words are those of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in last week’s landmark Supreme Court decision marking some sort of culmination in the long corporate trek to personhood. It’s the word “simply” that gets to me: Exxon-Pinocchio is a real boy now, and has his opinions, and the government has no right to stop him from “simply engaging in political speech.”
What a cheap cover story; it’s up there with “bringing democracy to Iraq” in its tawdry manipulation of iconic national values to justify a raw power grab. The 5-4 decision in the long-awaited Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case overturns restrictions on corporate spending to influence election results, giving entities with millions (in some cases, billions) of dollars at their disposal unlimited license to electioneer for the candidate with the friendliest attitude toward their interests.
The tendency of money and power is to concentrate, of course. The big trick, from a human perspective, is to make sure our core values remain pre-eminent, that they are served by the ways in which we concentrate power. Democracy is the great mechanism for doing so, the hope of the world, or so we are told, but the wakeup message in this nakedly cynical ruling by the Roberts Court, with its slim (but sufficient) right-wing majority, is that the concept of democracy is mortally wounded.
As former Sen. Bob Kerrey wrote recently on Huffington Post: “Instead of doing the nation’s business, elected officials are spending a third of their time or more dialing for special interest dollars in never-ending campaigns for re-election.
“Industry lobbyists,” he goes on, “are helping to write the very bills in Congress that affect their bottom line, placing private profit ahead of the public good. Billions of taxpayer dollars are going to benefit big contributors through earmarks, subsidies, and special regulations.”
And as Chris Hedges explains on TruthDig: “Corporations have 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals that dole out corporate money to shape and write legislation.”
The interests of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Coal, agribusiness, the financial sector, the insurance sector and, of course, the military-industrial complex, have infinitely more clout in government than the collective popular will and the voices calling for eco-sanity, universal health care and an end to war. Note: This is already the case.
Corporate entities have thoroughly gamed the system, leaving us with little more than a textbook-democracy façade. What the latest Supreme Court decision does is legitimize all this, shoving the corruption in our faces by declaring the absurd: Corporations are people too! They have a right to weigh in on the candidates just like the rest of us — to get their billion-dollar opinions out to the public throughout the election campaign.
This is an “activist” judicial decision, that is to say, a decision that serves a prior agenda, with any principles cited (e.g., the sanctity of free speech) sheer window dressing in service to a larger, and covert, cause.
As a New York Times story points out, the case itself — involving a conservative, not-for-profit corporation called Citizens United, which was restricted in its ability to distribute an attack film about Hillary Clinton, “Hillary: The Movie,” during the 2008 presidential primary elections — could have been decided on narrow grounds. The court chose instead to expand the scope of the case, making it into a challenge of existing laws that regulate corporate election spending, most notably the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold, which prohibits corporate electioneering within 60 days of an election. This is what we’ve lost.
The good news is that the decision has generated a huge outpouring of anger around the country. Within a day of the ruling, the website MoveToAmend.org had garnered some 40,000 signatures (it’s now close to 50,000) in support of a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech and only human beings have constitutional rights. The amendment would also guarantee our right to vote and participate in elections, and to have our votes count.
A number of bills and legislative actions are also in the works, attempting to circumvent the Supremes. The proposals range from patch jobs to cries for profound change, both of which are necessary in the process of resuscitating democracy.
No matter what, though, the Roberts Court has hastened the propagandizing of the national discourse, mostly through the medium of television, as corporate interests amp up their thought-control machines in the name of free speech. I see little hope for a gullible nation that allows the tube to hemorrhage urgent inanities directly into its consciousness for 18 hours a day. This gullibility is the source of corporate power. Democracy can only thrive where people think for themselves.
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at koehlercw@gmail.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.)
Posted with Special Permission to BuzzFlash by Robert C. Koehler
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version

Only allow registered voters to make political contributions
While a bit radical-sounding, wouldn't this cut much corporate influence off at the knees?
Any voter could still contribute to any one or cause or organization - but accounting would be required to show that all funds orginally came from voters, so that political contribution money is not "laundered" via front organizations.
Ever notice how those who
are in the business of betraying trusts always have the handy rationalizations? How each betrayal is portrayed as an act of distilled, essential virtue, done only for the most noble or exalted or selfless or virtuous of reasons? If this majority's latest betrayal of thier sacred trust cannot be corrected by constitutional amendment(s), let us hope that some future court has a field day correcting the grievous serial errors of this court.
Distributing wealth
Well, distributing wealth is NOT going to bring about democracy, it will bring about socialism. Everyone has the same opportunities or at least that is the way the constitution is written but it is being ignored. I do not agree with big business interfering with elections. casino en ligne
You seem to be saying that
You seem to be saying that democracy and socialism are mutually exclusive. Where did you get a riduculous idea like this? And what's wrong with socialism - cops, traffic lights, interstate highways, clean water....don't try to tell me that the "free market" is any way at all to see to these things to the benefit of society.
...but more to the point, my proposal for severe wealth-leveling efforts is really the only hope for "capitalism" as it relates to what has been termed "the American dream". What we have now is extreme unregulated capitalism, in which "competition" is code for monopoly, and entry into just about any industry as a small entrepreuer is next to impossible.
Teddy Roosevelt knew what the accumulation of disproportonate wealth could do to a democracy, and he enacted legislation that hindered it. Are you calling TR a "socialist"?
Hear! Hear!
the only acts of government thatr aren't socialism are those acts in which the government preys upon or oppresses the citizens. Any government act which sees to the well-being of the People and their society is socialism. If we are looking for the logical extension of a government that is devoid of most traces of socialism, we need only look to Somalia.
Don't contribution limits apply?
There's one thing I just don't understand: If corporations are "people", shouldn't peoples' contribution limits also apply to corporate "people"?
Individuals can't contribute $100,000 to a campaign. Why should a corporation be allowed to?
They do apply
The corporations are still not allowed to contribute directly to campaigns. The concern is the advocacy adds they can put out in support of or against issues and candidates without going through the campaigns. Limitless.
any....
Any system can be gamed if you've got the money, the lawyers and the connections to do so.
Another 5-4 ruling against democracy
The five justices gamed the system by invoking freedom of speech. It was quite a cynical play of the Constitution. I wonder how they arrived at that decision in such a uniform showing of the 1rst amendment in favor of the corporate. It's doubtful they arrived at that decision any more independently than the ruling on the 2000 election. It's too bad they don't have the kind of accountability the average person has in the workplace, or for that matter, in the legal system.
Well, the decision is here
Well, the decision is here to stay for a while, anyway - until the slow wheel of court propriety allows the matter to be reconsidered - and even then well need a different court.
Money (or spending) as free-speech is a complicated issue, we must admit. The miasma of specific regulations needed to keep certain kinds of spending at a minimum, and to judge exactly what those kinds will be, is painful to consider, and Occam's Razor brings into question its wisdom.
The issue only seems stark and clear when we consider the disproportionate influence permitted by people and corporations possessing vast stockpiles of wealth. ....still, the details are excruciating.
So lets make it easy. Lets admit to ourselves that there is some sense in saying that our spending on the exercise of political speech is integral to our First Ammendment rights, but lets fix the situation's inherent problems of inequality at the other end. Tax the rich out of existence, and smash the giant corporations into locally relevant, democratic enterprises and industries.
It is clear that this recent decision, and its precedent Buckley v Valeo, demand a profound redistribution of wealth in this country, so that we once again resemble a functional democracy.