Original photo: Public Citizen, CC 2.0Fayetteville Speaks: Thoughts on the role of the corporation in government
I have recently lost all of my trust in our national Supreme Court. Well, at least the majority of our Justices.
The Supreme Court recently overturned a 1907 restriction that forbade corporations, advocacy organizations or unions from using funds from their treasury to persuade voters in any election.
As a general rule, most corporations are – first and foremost – programmed with one goal in mind: to make money. To insure job security within a corporation, every employee, from the CEO to the secretary, must constantly be making the corporation money. The more money an employee makes for a corporation, typically the higher salary or bonus. As such, greed is encouraged. Every honest person agrees that greed is far from desirable and some may even recognize it as a deadly sin.
The United States Supreme Court, however, feels that these corporations have a right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights to influence the result of democratic elections. In fact, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts, stated that not overturning the restriction would have continued to restrain “the vibrant public discourse that is the foundation of our democracy.”
That’s hilarious. Because the last time I checked, the foundation of a democracy was the voice of the people. I can’t fathom how allowing entities with vary narrow goals and very deep pockets to influence the outcomes of our government elections is democratic. Especially when 42 percent of US corporations did not pay US income taxes for two or more years between 1998 and 2005 – when corporate sales in the US totaled $2.5 trillion – according to a Government Accountability Office report quoted by Reuters. It seems to me that a large portion of corporations are going out of their way to not pay their due to the government, essentially requiring the populace to carry those corporations share.
Do we really want corporations to be the dominant players in not only in our national governments, but also in our local governments? Do we really want them diminishing the power of the voice of the people?
Imagine the impact this will have on local elections. Imagine any candidate for judge or mayor of Bentonville, Arkansas. Imagine the candidate wanting to put his constituents’ concerns before those of Wal-Mart. Imagine the onesidedness of a political campaign against the pro-populace candidate and a Wal-Mart backed candidate. Is there anyone in this state that can stand up to a $67 billion entity?
If no new laws are introduced that specifically restrict political advertisements from corporations, you won’t have to imagine for long.
Near the beginning of the 20th century, when Teddy Roosevelt was President, he stated that “all contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”
Our current president holds a similar opinion on the matter over a century later, stating that the ruling is “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.”
But no one person – not even our President – can bring our government back on track. I urge everyone to not just sit idly by while our government continues to listen to corporate interests, yet turns a deaf ear to its constituents.
At the very least, contact your local, state and national representatives. Impress upon them that they are expected to make sure the people’s voice is never drowned out in democratic elections by any over powered and over represented entity.
Andrew Beekman
Fayetteville
Fayetteville Speaks is your chance to express opinions and ideas for possible publication here on the Fayetteville Flyer. The opinions expressed here are not those of the Fayetteville Flyer. See our submissions page for full guidelines.
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Brandon Kittler
January 25, 2010
This greatly disturbs me.
Another big problem I have with this is that some corporations here are just branches of a foreign company. This now gives, say, a Chinese corp with a prescence here the legal right to attempt to steer the outcome of American elections.
That’s ridiculous!
I don’t understand how anyone with two brain cells that light up could see anything positive coming out of this arrangement.
Milky
January 25, 2010
Sickening.
Offcamber
January 25, 2010
It’s a stretch to consider corporations as entities sharing the constitutional rights of humans, and claim that their financial contributions are a protected form of expression. I’m a Lockean, pro-liberty type not apt to support any restrictions on personal freedom, but corporate and individual participation in the election process are two different things. Effectively, this ruling will undermine the health of democracy.
Decisions like this happen because the American system was designed with a flaw. The Supreme Court operates outside democracy, allowing a narrow and human interpretation of legislation to threaten personal freedom. As the final point of lawful review in America, the Supreme Court holds an unwieldy level of power for a small, mildly-vetted, appointed body with no term limits.
The best we can do is remain vigilant guardians of individual liberties, and question every motive and implication of any agent that may affect them, big or small.
Michael
January 25, 2010
1. While there are elements of the democratic form of governance within the framework of our government, the US is NOT a democracy.
2. There are already those with narrow self serving desires attempting to influence the minds of the voters; they are commonly called politicians, political action committees, unions, etc. So the message from a corporation running a campaign message is just one more in a sea of hundreds if not thousands.
burgerboy
January 25, 2010
Politicians are already bought and sold. This will only worsen the main problem with our democracy right now.
Urk
January 25, 2010
@offcamber, while I agree with you philosophically, legal corporate personhood has been a reality in the US since the 1880s. that provides alot of the basis for this decision & is, IMHO, the root of much that’s really screwed up in the US politically and economically since then.
I disagree about the power of the court. all of the branches keep each other in check to some degree, & the length of appt. at the SCOTUS means that even a party that dominates the other two branches for a cycle or two is unlikely to also completely control the court. And the court needs to be powerful as well, for cases where presidents and legislators are either lacking in political courage and/or complicit in an unjust status quo. Brown V. Board would never have passed as law in 1954, not in congress, not via state legislatures (maybe a couple, no more) and not by state or national popular vote. It’s really exhibit A for the need for the SCOTUS as an equally powerful branch.
And I’d add that the court is hardly mildly vetted. I’d agree however that the vetting process has become largely a kabuki act pitting grandstanding senators against stonewalling nominees, and that the people doing the vetting are largely corporate shills, thus the makeup of the court today.
Offcamber
January 26, 2010
The U.S. Constitution and its system of amendments was intended to and functions as a guarantor of personal freedom. Aiding globally financed and influenced corporate elections would be Counterpoint A. If the Supreme Court is unable to serve as guardian of freedom, its station in government checks and balances is mostly irrelevant.
SCOTUS is a showcase of bias that see-saws in ideology, a place ripe for inconsistency regarding liberty and constitutional interpretation. The appeals process is a carnival game, and the justices can only hear a tiny fraction of what makes it to them. A handful of people chosen by the randomness of political wind and human frailty set the agenda of justice and outcome of legal review. A mere nine people with lifetime power are allowed dangerous hand in the lives of 300 million fellow citizens.
On the positive, a government of the people is just as divisive and inept as the people itself. The freedom of society is best preserved by government doing the least, and gridlock guarantees that. SCOTUS logistically can only fail Americans a finite number of times per year due to workload (nine people serving 300 million is almost as bad as the DMV). The distopian future where we’re the barcoded property of a single globo-mega-corporation is still years away at this rate!
Andy Roo
February 4, 2010
Just saw this appropriate Onion article on the subject:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows