The Supreme Court’s Brave New Electionworld
The Supreme Court has struck a mighty blow for corporate freedom. By courageously setting aside past legal precedents that have kept corporations (which after all are just folks like everyone else) from enjoying their full free speech rights, corporations can now express themselves the same way every other decent individual does — with huge infusions of money into the political system.
This is a very important decision that the Founding Fathers would doubtless have found..well, interesting. Yet it is only a first step in giving corporations the full enfranchisement to which they are certainly entitled. We thus need a strong follow through. I’m thinking a good first step here would be sponsorship rights for elections.
With local governments so hard pressed for cash these days, doesn’t it make common sense, and constitutional sense, according to our present supreme court, for corporations to sponsor local elections the way they now sponsor other competitions like sports events? I’m looking ahead to the next congressional race in my own very liberal Philadelphia congressional district which soon might be renamed the Tostito Lefty Bowl. Tawdry, you say? Inane? Unspeakably vulgar? Let traditionalists whine all they want. Free speech is free speech for those who might see an interest in spending it.
Which brings us to voting. Full enfranchisement for corporations clearly requires that corporations have the right to vote like they have the right to money-based free speech. The carping crowd may claim that this would be impractical because some corporations have thousands of employees. How, then, could they vote?
To me, such a question smacks of simple prejudice. We make special accommodations for the disabled. Why not special accommodation for our corporate fellow citizens just because they are little different, more collectively obese, as it were. Corporations should have the same voting rights as the lame, the halt and the blind. All we need do is expand the size of voting booths.
And now we come to the natural, and perhaps the inevitable end game when it comes to corporate enfranchisement rights, the game now so nobly advanced by our supreme court with its corporate free speech decision. I’m thinking office holding. And before some traditional-bound carper says this is going too far, I’ll point out there’s really no big change required here. The mayor of New York has the same name as a huge financial news corporation he founded. That’s the only precedent needed (not that precedent is all that important to our present supreme court, but still…)
I’m now looking forward to the day when Congresscorp Procter & Gamble and Senator Burger King can meet with President Apple to work out health care policy. Which when you get right down to it, isn’t any crazier than having such policy shaped by the likes of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “The Supreme Court’s Brave New Electionworld”
This is America – if freedom wants to have the freedom to choose euthanasia, then who are we to deny freedom its freedom to slowly and obliviously die in peace?
I'm actually giggling at the absurdity of it all. I see Sotomayor only went along as to part IV – and here the right spent weeks screaming and puking over her “judicial activism” while Bush's appointees kneel down in front of the corporations and flip the bird to stare decisis.
There is no “Which nation can turn into Italy fastest” contest, so I must ask: What the *haberdasher* are you doing to your country?
…in the Ovaltine office of the Whitecastle house. After all, it works for sports franchises.
Nuance lesson of the day
Obama cuts deal with Big Pharma for $ 150,000,000 ad campaign in favor of ObamaCare
This is GOOD corporate speech and 'just part of the legislative process'
Supreme Court rules corporations can speak out on issues
This is BAD, a threat to the foundations of our democracy (insert hysterical clauses here)
lol. Good one. Big corps should actually eliminate the employees need to vote at all. After all, they pay for everything anyway.
“This is GOOD corporate speech and 'just part of the legislative process”
Thank the purpler democrats for that little concession.
See, the left-wingers recognized that because of people like Lieberman or Baucus, the reform bill would be a banana/turd sandwich. They hated those backroom deals and could understand why the public would dislike it – if more democrats in the senate had the minerals to ignore the lobbyists, no ad campaign would have been necessary. Unlike people like you, they also recognized that this country is now suffering quite urgently of potassium deficiency. So yeah, take your sardonic quips elsewhere – it wasn't the liberals or progressives who tangled the legislative process into a gordian knot.
“This is BAD, a threat to the foundations of our democracy (insert hysterical clauses here)”
So you wish to rag on the reform bill and now defend the SCOTUS decision to unleash an even greater influx of the same bigshot/big money influence that turned the reform bill into a mess.
Good grief there is no end to the cognitive dissonance and double-speak in America – you tried to slyly make a few digs on left-wing hypocrisy an ended up talking out of both corners of your mouth.
At times I think America was founded to provide people like me with amusement and bewilderment.
both positions stated are positions of President Barrack Hussein Obama.
Hey, I didn't vote for him. How about you?
And now your position is to attack the evil moderate Democrats. OK, have at it.
So why do most of the “the left-wingers” avoid confronting the AMA, pharmaceuticals, the lawyers, the medical manufacturers, and all the other legally protected leaches in our medical system? Why are insurance companies constantly pounded as the scapegoat when the biggest problems are the AMA's power and its treatment of specialists, and the fact that no one in either party seems willing to confront the issue of limited resources head on (okay, the Dems for snuck a small nub into the stimulus package, so I'll give them a quarter-point there)?
it wasn't the liberals or progressives who tangled the legislative process into a gordian knot.”
Severe denial will cause you to break out in a rash.
The government lost their case when they said they would be in favor of banning books.
OK, so DaMav and Leonidas, you are arguing in favor of unlimited corporate financing and hence control of elections and legislation, or against it? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but why pretend to criticize what I think you actually favor: corporate fascism?
Fascism is where the government controls political speech. I'm celebrating the recent blow against fascism delivered by the SCOTUS.
The ACLU and I both support the decision.
Bull, DaMav,
Under communism in both Russia and China, government controlled all speech.
In fascism, corporate interests, an oligarchy, rules. There is NO OTHER democracy that allows unrestricted corporate funding of political speech. And there's a big difference between “free speech” and “commercial speech”. You disagree? How about unrestricted corporate opinion in labeling and advertising of foods and drugs? How about “perfectly safe and absolutely cures cancer.” Free speech? Methinks you're nuts.
Oh come on, GreenDreams. The ruling was about a non-profit corporation making a political movie. Do you really think that should be illegal?
The issue is political speech. The SCOTUS did not repeal fraud laws or consumer product safety laws or any of the other fantastic and irrelevant things you want to throw into your argument. The decision addressed restrictions on political speech.
Both the ACLU and the AFL-CIO filed amicus briefs to overturn the law; the latter of course only as it applied to unions but driving home the point that people do not lose their right to speech through a group. And Gallup reports that most Americans agree with major aspects of the case — including that the same laws should apply to corporations, unions, and individuals.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees…
So all those people must be 'nuts' too. Everyone but you and your pet unicorn.
It seems to me that most of the comments above miss the key point about free speech and the right of a corporation to exercise political free speech. I have a view. Everyone who commented above has a view. We are people with a single view about a particular issue. But a corporation, the legal fiction that it is also a “person” that's needed to allow it to function in a marketplace notwithstanding, is not a real person.
So who will decide its free speech political view now allowed by the Supreme Court? It's CEO? Its board? Its advertising agency? Certainly not its owners who will not be polled about how much free speech (i.e. money) will be spent to advocate a certain political point of view. A corporation's commercial interests are obvious and easily represented by advertising. It wants to make money with its ads. Fine. No such obvious relationship exists in the political realm.
I own shares in a number of companies. If any of them spends money to advocate a political view, I should decide what this view should be. Not some hireling, some corporate manager, who I only allow to work at the company to advance by economic, not my political or social interests.
Uh, you're apparently unaware that there are already cases arguing that so long as commercial speech is “truthful” it's free speech, with respect to drugs. Not FDA approved, just “truthful.” Truthful like “millions have been helped” and “Mrs. Hendricks lost 30 pounds in 1 week.”
In the current case, “truthful” isn't even a factor. A corporation with tens of millions to spend spreading a lie is free to do so. Congratulations. You win.