What do you think about NYU’s housing lottery system?
On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court made its first landmark decision for the 2009-10 term by overturning a century of precedent and lifting the ban on corporate political campaign spending.
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision gives corporations free reign to pour unlimited business bucks into political campaigns. This ruling dangerously inflates corporate influence over government affairs and marks a devastating step backward for campaign finance reform.
A disappointed President Obama described the undemocratic implications of the Supreme Court's decision: "It 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."
Therein lies the painful irony of the ruling: The decision's beneficiaries are corporations who already influence Washington.
During a time when our country's economic turmoil has provided a unique window for political change, a time in which Americans can challenge their leaders to redefine the power relationship between citizen and corporation, the Court has landed firmly on the side of big business. We have entrenched ourselves ever more deeply in the status quo.
The majority vote justified its ruling with a gross misapplication of the First Amendment.
The assenting justices touted the decision as a victory of free political association. According to their logic, corporations are to be afforded the same free speech rights as any person. But it makes little sense to give corporations the same rights as human beings. Corporations should not be permitted to fund political campaigns any more than they should be given the right to vote in elections.
My point is painfully obvious, almost stupid: "Corporations are not people." If I prick a corporation, it does not bleed.
But since the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, corporations have been defined legally as people. The amendment, which states that the government shall not deprive any person of life, liberty or property, was designed to extend human rights to former slaves.
But since the landmark Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886, the 14th Amendment was reinterpreted, and corporations have attained the legal status of "personhood." In the eyes of the law, corporations are people.
The legal mindset that corporations are akin to citizens has helped justify ever-increasing corporate political empowerment, from lucrative Political Action Committees to 527 groups. Clearly, corporate involvement in campaigns is not a new phenomenon. What is new about the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is the pure, unadulterated format of the updated corporate funding. Formerly, when PACs gave money to politicians, it was through individual employee contributions collected by corporate "bundlers." Each individual was limited to a maximum $2,600 contribution per candidate. Now, corporations can tap into billions of dollars of profit and contribute unlimited sums on behalf of the company.
If corporations take advantage of their newfound power to pledge, they can effectively drown out citizen contributions. Candidates will be forced to pander to corporate campaign sponsors in order to remain financially competitive with their opponents. Victorious candidates will be beholden to their sponsors while in office.
It's a bleak picture. On Nov. 2, 36 Senate seats will be up for grabs. That gives the Obama team and Congress eight months to put some laws on the books that will curb corporate spending. Given Obama's and Congress' track records, this doesn't look too promising.
My ears are ringing already: "Sarah Palin brought to you by Wal-Mart. Nabisco presents Howard Dean. Chevrolet is proud to support the efforts of Mike Huckabee."
leave a comment
Comments from unregistered users will appear once they are approved. Log in to have your comment show up immediately.