Social Network

Stereo Blastin'

Something OLD
Incubus - Fungus Amongus
"Trouble In 421"
Something NEW
Phoenix - Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix
"Fences"
Something BORROWED
from Kael
Harlem Shakes - Technicolor Health
"Sunlight"
Something BLUES
John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillin & Other Favorties
"Boogie Chillen'"

Learn how to play!

« Why You Should Root For McCain In Arizona's 2010 Senate Primary | Main | Healthcare Reform In The Aftermath Of Scott Brown »
Friday
29Jan2010

Plutocracy Now: The Supreme Court's Recent Landmark Decision and Why You Should Be Outraged

 

A government of the shareholders, by the shareholders, and for the shareholders... What about the People?

 The Supreme Court's recent landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission should have the citizenry up in its proverbial arms.  Last Thursday the court decided to remove a well established ban upon corporate spending in public elections.  The decision radically reverses well established legal precedent and erodes a century-old wall of separation that has stood between corporations and electoral politics -- the decision also removes restrictions upon labor unions and non-profits; although, they can't really compete with the vast cash stuffed arsenals of corporate America.

Disingenuously brandishing the flag of the First Amendment, the court's conservative majority has paved the way to open the floodgates of corporate cash to overwhelm elections, intimidate elected officials, and purchase votes wholesale through vast media outlets and empires that shape public opinion.  There are now no longer any restrictions upon how much a corporation can contribute toward a political cause or campaign, and this decision frees corporations to spend as much as they want to elect or defeat any candidate nationwide (i.e. be ready for an onslaught of political advertising); however, the majority ruling does not affect bans on direct contributions to candidates.  Yet, as Justice John Paul Stevens rightly noted, "The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind... And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf."

The president has called the decision "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

Yet, perhaps what is most alarming about the court's recent decision is not just the legal precedent it sets but the time at which it comes.  We live in one of the most bitterly partisan and politically gridlocked eras in all of American history much akin to the hyper partisanship that corroded the Athenian democracy towards the end of the fifth century BCE.  We live in a time in which registered lobbyists vastly outnumber not only U.S. congressmen but the combined sum total of all legislators nationwide -- a figure of about 15,000 v. 8,000.  We live in a time, quite frankly, in which the future of our democracy is at risk.  And the recent actions of the high court only serve to put our country at an even greater risk at a time in which more and more Americans are losing faith in the power of our government to represent their interests and improve the quality of their lives.

Our founding fathers warned of the danger of corporate influence.  And while they may not have all shared the same political theory or subscribed to the same political ideology, they all believed that the primary function of government was to serve the general interest and welfare of the public, not corporate shareholders, and the Constitution they provided us affirms that fundamental belief. 

By insisting that corporations are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as private individuals, the Supreme Court has effectively denied and supressed the ability of ordinary citizens to assert themselves in the public square when they barely have a voice at all amidst the drowning sea of special interests.  Now, more than ever, it is imperative that the United States Congress and the American people act swiftly and boldly to remind the plutocrats of the court for whom and by whom this country was founded.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (4)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (3)

So, in summary (and to paraphrase): we all get the government we can afford... and if you can't afford it, or at least contribute to it, then you can't expect it to represent you.

In essence, then, the battle cry has transmogrified from being one of, "No taxation without representation!", to one of, "No representation without contribution!"

This does raise the question as to whether the US is actually a sovereign state any more; or just a loose melange of corporate state-lets and bought-n-paid-for special interest groups masquerading as government?

Viva la Cartels? Libre la Lobbyists?

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCosmic Navel Lint

RE: Cosmic Navel Lint

That's more or less the message that I believe this recent ruling sends. I believe it is anti-democratic, anti-republican and completely contrary to the political theory outlined in the Constitution.

The question I believe we should seek to answer is whether the United States is really a democracy or whether it is actually a plutocratic oligarchy masquerading as one. While I love this country and am a firm believer in the democratic vision set forth in our founding documents, I am deeply troubled by the direction we're heading. I believe that we need dramatic and fundamental change if we are to rescue our democratic republic from the hands of the special interests which are poisoning our politics and corroding our institutional structures.

January 29, 2010 | Registered CommenterNathan Hardy

There is a lot of merit in your reply - I can see the Rupert Murdochs of this world rubbing their hands together with unbridled anticipation at this decision, and, like a basketball team coach during the transfer season, lining-up which politicians he wants to buy. Imagine that, a transfer market (what you guys call ‘the draft’) for politicians – like there isn’t enough lobbyist-backed pork-barrelling going in DC?

In one fell swoop the US may has just designed itself into national identity irrelevance - as which other world leader or visiting head of state will want to speak to a mere corporate salesman, as your head of state might now become, knowing that he/she'd only be speaking to someone with the a limited number of corporate interests at heart and not those of an entire nation?

Worse still, US national policy designed to suit only corporations and not the people? What will the arms manufacturing lobby do when the US has gone more than 5 years without a war? Lobby for one? Invasion as job creation? Oh wait, Bush-Cheney did that already…

Pardon the French, but this is a fucking disastrous move by SCOTUS.

February 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCosmic Navel Lint

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>