How Does Supreme Court Decision Serve The People?
The recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations unlimited spending on political ads was the right decision in the case. It is not something we should be cheering for in the larger sense of what it means for American politics.
One good thing about this decision is that it levels the playing field by granting corporations the same advantages Unions and other organizations have when it comes to political campaigns and support of candidates. Another positive twist is that the level of awareness and debate could increase significantly; specifically by exposing a segment of the population who would otherwise be ill-informed in general about politics because what they know is only what they see in TV advertisements in their respective markets.
But this case is an isolated one, which does not address the real problem…the fact that too much money in politics not only adds to corruption but also makes it virtually impossible for the average citizen to campaign and compete in elections.
Many people on the right argue that this is about the First Amendment right to free speech. I don’t agree with that. The corporation is not an individual that can participate in rights. For example, does a corporation (remember it’s a piece of paper) have the right to keep and bear arms? How about the right to a speedy trial, why would it need that if it is never put in a jail cell? How about the right to the pursuit of happiness? Is a piece of paper capable of being happy or sad?
We have structures in place to allow individuals of a political opinion or ideology to band together and fund the propagation of their ideas. That is a healthy way of getting the opinion of the people into the public view. But I doubt very seriously that Nike will be concerned with individual tax rates if they can find a politician who will grant them special privileges for their business.
I think most Americans would agree that special interests, corporations and lobbyists already have way too much influence over politics and the legislative process. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates for corporations to increase their influence without limits. How does that serve the people? How does that help the people make their voices heard? Will this ratchet up the polarization of debate, further fueling the divisions in the electorate?
Insurance companies are corporations. How on earth will letting them spend freely on politics increase competition in the marketplace allowing us to negotiate lower prices and policies that fit our lifestyles and budgets. What about multinational corporations, which have no allegiance to America but will now have the opportunity to influence our political process through unlimited funding to promote ideologies that serve their particular interests? Think about the potential hazards this could lead to…special interests on steroids. Corporations will be able to fund the people who are friendly to them regardless of what it means to this society and our freedom.
The case I would like the Supreme Court to decide is if the current campaign finance laws are constitutional and actually serve the people. I would argue that we need significant limits on campaign financing activities. We should have a system that encourages average individuals to serve in public office. Today we have a system that encourages wealthy lawyers who can rarely avoid scandal as their power and influence is auctioned to the highest bidder(s).
In short, the money should be funneled through individuals, have low limits and be tax-free. Corporate profits should be directed to equity growth, dividends and R&D; allowing individual investors the opportunity to participate in the wealth generating machine that corporations are capable of being.
Are corporations really persons?
Do corporations think?
Do corporations weep?
Do corporations fall in love?
Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?
Do corporations have loved ones?
Are corporations even capable of loving?
Do corporations sometimes lose sleep at night worrying about disease, violence, destruction, and the suffering of their fellow human beings?
Do corporations feel your pain?
Is a corporation capable of having a sense of humor? Is it capable of laughing at itself? (EXAMPLE: “So these two corporations walk into a bar….”)
If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: “It”)
Has a corporation ever walked into a voting booth and cast a ballot for the candidate of its choice?
We all know that corporations have made a mountain of cash throughout our history by profiting on the unspeakable tragedy of war. But has a corporation ever given its life for its country?
Is a corporation capable of raising a child?
Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?
Has a corporation ever written a novel or a dramatic play or a song that inspired millions?
Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?
Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or a Tony? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or a Polk or Peabody Award? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?
Has a corporation ever performed Schubert’s Ave Maria?
Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?
Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising in the horizon?
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?
Should corporations kiss on the first date?
Could a corporation resolve to dedicate its vocation to being an artist? Or a musician? Or an opera singer? Or a Catholic priest? Or a Doctor? Or a Dentist? Or a sheet metal worker? Or a gourmet chef? Or a short-order cook? Or a magician? Or a nurse? Or a trapeze artist? Or an author? Or an editor? Or a Thrift Shop owner? Or a EMT worker? Or a book binder? Or a Hardware Store clerk? Or a funeral director? Or a sanitation worker? Or an actor? Or a comedian? Or a glass blower? Or a chamber maid? Or a film director? Or a newspaper reporter? Or a deep sea fisherman? Or a farmer? Or a piano tuner? Or a jeweler? Or a janitor? Or a nun? Or a Trappist Monk? Or a poet? Or a pilgrim? Or a bar tender? Or a used car salesman? Or a brick layer? Or a mayor? Or a soothsayer? Or a Hall-of-Fame football player? Or a soldier? Or a sailor? Or a butcher? Or a baker? Or a candlestick maker?
Could a corporation choose to opt out of all the above and merely become a bum? Living life on the road, hopping freight trains and roasting mickeys in the woods?
I realize that this is pure theological speculation on my part but the question is just screaming to be posed: When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?
Our lives – yours and mine – have more worth than any damned corporation. The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday was beyond wrongheaded. Not only was it obscene – it was an insult to our humanity.
http://wwww.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Hmmm, feel free to substitute the word Union(s) for Corporation(s) in all of the above instances. I’m not seeing a valid argument or agreement here. In fact I think you missed the entire point!
Hi Keely, I just bopped in to read Kevin’s missive. I was just about too write a short comment nearly verbatim to yours. Imagine my surprise when I saw you had already written it for me. Also love what fellow contributor Robin posts below, that so very much nails what this decision was all about.
I think there is a big misunderstanding being propagated by the “hate corporations” crowd.
The part of the act that was over turn had to do with:
1. allowing companies that produce television media, the same freedom of speech that is given to print and radio media. Why should my freedom to put a documentary on TV a few days prior to an election by illegal, but a labor union can do it? Why can a group that uses print media distribute materials, but once it becomes a political TV program it is a “commercial?” In today’s technology, video should be included in “free press” and free speech as much as print media.
2. also, just because a group is incorporated, doest mean that it is some rich fat cats wanting to abuse Americans. When citizens form a group, they incorporate it, (they file with their secretary of state for a legal identity.) Unions were the only group allowed to advertise for a candidate… but lets say we have a group of moms who want more attention paid to veterans… Why is this group limited to how much it can spend when the unions, newspapers,and magazine companies, are not?
Liberals have always had the unions and most of the press, (New papers and magazines like Times and News Week, CBS, ABC, etc. who would give “voice” to their other liberal groups.) They knew that this portion of the act would severely limit their opposition, but not them.
The part of the act that was over turned is not about “big corporations.”