Juris-imprudence

Democracy took a big hit yesterday when the Supreme Court voted to remove the limits that corporations and labor unions can give in cash to political campaigns. Basically, the court ruled that such limits violate their rights to free speech.

Really? Corporations and unions have the rights of individuals? Do they vote? No. (But they will now.) Do they go to war? Kind of. (Many corporations are making millions doing jobs that the military used to do, such as security, cooking, construction, transportation, administration, etc.) Are they patriotic? Only as far as it benefits their self interests.

On the surface, the strange thing about this is that it would seem to be a win for Republicans. Their candidates are more likely to prosper from the political spending of corporations. (Let’s face it, unions are weakened and far less capitalized than corporations.) Still, you don’t hear Fox News crowing about this one. Why? I think, deep down, they realize that their voices also have become more marginalized—along with the rest of us poor slobs.

Imagine the candidates that corporations from big insurance, big banks, big pharma, big agra, big oil, and every other big business entity out there, will field in order to do their bidding. It’s like a man who just woke up to discover he has super powers. Yes, Joe the Plumber, unless you’ve got $30 billion to throw around, your vote is now up against the money and influence of Pfizer, Halliburton, and ConAgra, which is fine as long as their agenda matches yours. But tell me, dear GOPers, what will you do when a health insurance company and medical provider get together and figure out how much money they are leaving on the table by not being able to offer safe and frequent abortion services? What will you do when genetic companies discover that a fortune can be made through cloning? Will they bend to your moral pleas? Will they be scared of your one measly vote? Will your tea bags persuade a multi-national corporation to sacrifice a windfall profit for its investors?

And hasn’t it always been the Right who has cried out against an activist court that would legislate from the bench? Hmmm. I guess that’s only a problem when you don’t agree with the activism. Otherwise, legislate away!

Indeed, if there was to be a time to throw tea into the harbor, it would be now. The Tea Parties of last year did not suffer from taxation without representation. They just fretted that their taxes would be too high. They still had votes and representatives. Now, however, will we truly be represented by men and women who will listen to the voters, or will our representatives be well-funded lobbyists with corporate agendas and seats in Congress?

Good bye, checks and balances. Good bye, government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Good bye, one person/one vote.

I don’t know a lot about Justice John Paul Stevens. I’m sure there are areas in which we would have disagreement. But his dissenting opinion on this issue makes him my hero of the month. Here are some tidbits from his dissenting opinion. It’s a little long, but I think it is important:

“The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty…

“The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.

“The Court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.

“Going forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend as much general treasury money as they wish on ads that support or attack specific candidates, whereas national parties will not be able to spend a dime of soft money on ads of any kind. The Court’s ruling thus dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent—vis-à-vis the role of political parties—and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who will hold public office.

“If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by “Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans…

“Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.

“In short, the Court dramatically overstates its critique of identity-based distinctions, without ever explaining why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity. Only the most wooden approach to the First Amendment could justify the unprecedented line it seeks to draw….It is today’s holding that is the radical departure from what had been settled First Amendment law.

“At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”  (emphasis is carpetbagger’s)

I have no doubt that many corporations around the country—and abroad—are looking to hire highly paid political agents who will start to implement their company’s electoral strategies for 2012. Hey, they’d be stupid if they didn’t. And not that many companies are stupid—GM excluded.

My only solution would be this: Congress should enact a law that requires every political candidate who takes more than $10,000 from a corporate entity to have to put that company’s logo on their campaign material. You know, such as Tim Pawlenty for President, brought to you by Etna Insurance. It’s a win/win. Corporations get their free speech—as well as some free advertising—and the public gets the right to know.