Conservative Supreme Court Formalizes Politician Purchases

January 21st, 2010 at 11:31am Edward Troy 191

Yes that is right and right wing in case you were wondering. Hiding behind the flimsiest veil of dissipating steam to invoke 1st amendment "rights," (corporate privilege), the Supreme Court found it very important to allow Corporations to purchase adds for or against candidates -- directly. They can't contribute directly to candidates who could then decide how to parse their messages, but better for corporations they will have their own message for you. Labor unions will ba able to do the same however Labor unions are filled with employees of corporations. Who do you think has more money? With much of the electorate comprised of Homer Simpson, King of the Hill, Tea Party mental midgets, does any thinking person have any question how this will play out?

Most of you, even those who think I am way wrong, will be crushed by the corporate purchase of the ignorant vote. This will reduce demand, because the ignorant voters will get paid even less than they are now. Quality of life will suffer, and with ignorance competing against ascendant economies, the mid range (2-5 yrs.) and long term (5-15 years) outlook appears exceptionally bleak. Does any one else think this is potentially catastrophic for the political system? For the future economy? The train has just left the station, with next 20 years of potential on it. Goodbye train. Good night Moon.

Entry Filed under: Aspen

9 Comments Add your own

1. Michael Conniff | January 23rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Ed:

You are right on target here. I've been talking about his on both sides of the aisle and the reaction is the same from everyone: absolute horror. How the "originalists" of the Supreme Court could rule that the Founding Fathers would have wanted unfettered corporate money in campaigns is beyond understanding. I would point out that Justice Alito, as one example, has voted for corporate interests over the interests of citizens time after time after time. Thanks to the conservative majority of the court, it is far better today to be a corporation than a citizen.

We the people, indeed.

Coming as it does during the same week as Scott Brown's ascension to "the people's seat" in Massachusetts, the Court's decision raises the obvious question: how can the conservative movement, wrapped in populism, manage to reconcile the decision of a conservative court enshrining money in politics in a way that will change it forever? I'd love an answer to that particular question.

Finally, I can't end this comment without mention my reaction to Massachusetts and the Court--the first was a huge disappointment, of course, but these things happen in politics, usually when you least expect them. The second was nothing short of heartbreaking, the wrenching sense that a pact between the Court and the good of the people had been broken.

As I said to Barry Schochet, the conservative commentator on my "Con Games" show, we finally have something to agree about.

Best, Con Man!
2. Edward Troy | January 25th, 2010 at 10:37 am

This is paternalistic corporatism. By throwing in the impotent unions as an equivalent political factor with corporations, the reactionaries on the court (there are five) are now able to cover up the throwing of several succeeding elections into the lap of the ultra wealthy and corporations, regardless of foreign stakes and interests.

Corporations exist as legal structures designed for profit. Increasing quality of life and standard of living is an accidental by product, if it is in fact a product at all.

There is nothing stopping corporate advertising that labels politicians as pedophiles, cowards of war, communists, fascists, Muslims (as if that should matter), foreign born, KKK, unindicted murderers, baby killers and so forth. Others who are dishonorable will be turned into saviors, saints, war heroes, protectors of the environment weak and defenseless. All of this will muddle informational chaos potentially genuine reality.

Oh sure, those wronged can sue and even, maybe, get their day in court, after the election has been certified and the purchased seat occupied by the corporate desired politician. No problem. Sounds great. Let freedom ring.

This is the old style deregulatory Republican ideology from an old thread that subsumed the CPSC, broke down the unions to where they are now, leaving us with trial attorneys as the means to control irresponsibility in the products a corporation markets, and an economy that continues to thrive for the top 1%.

What will be amusing, is how the Republican fifth column of Tea Partiers will embrace this. Libertarians????? Ha ha ha! Sure they are!

If congress fails to act at a level fundamental to the SCOTUS decision, this will set back any reasonable hope of long term competitive ability of this country. 99% of the population is becoming increasingly marginalized and useless to the world economy.

No Tea Party, Libertarian, Republican, reactionary or conservative has explained to me how unhealthy ignorant people will be able to compete for capital in the world economy, or even tried. I have not heard any such explanation in media either.
3. Mitch Mulhall | January 26th, 2010 at 9:42 pm

Ed & Michael,

The Supreme Court held that government cannot “level the political playing field” by banning corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films, books, or even campaign signs. Some corporations consist of American people, people to whom the US Constitution extends as much right to free speech as I enjoy typing on this blog.

Based on your analyses above, I read that wealth is a basis for limiting the protections of the First Amendment. This is not founded on anything in the Constitution. Do you really believe that curbing the free speech rights of wealthy people will solve the inequity between the haves and the have nots? I find that a mighty blunt instrument to marshal in an effort to mitigate this long-standing condition.

Cheers,
4. Michael Conniff | January 27th, 2010 at 7:02 pm

[Some corporations consist of American people....]

Mitch:

And some, by your definition, consist of FOREIGN people. Surely they enhoy the full rights of free speech delineated under the Constitution.

Though corporations do indeed "consist of American people," .they are in fact legal entities with officers who have fidicuary responsibilities and shareholders who own the company. They are not individuals. Corporations do not file individual tax returns nor do they pay personal income taxes.

To simplify this distinction, if corporations "consisted of people" then why are suits frequently filed (and even won) against both corporations AND the individuals responsible for running the company? They are not one and the same.

Corporations are legal not personal entities. I am absolutely amazed that even judicial activists like the Roberts Court would imply the Founding Fathers had anything like this in mind.

So much for "originalism." More like original sin if you ask me.

Best, Con Man!
5. Edward Troy | January 28th, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Mitch,

To clarify; One wealthy person shpuld have the same political voice as one poor or poorer person.

Are you supporting the role of corporate boards as the political spokesman for all employees as though those employees all agree with their potential political advertising?

It would seem that not only does the board represent themselves as individuals but they also get to represent themselves again and all those under them as a corporation.

Since corporations do not vote, why would they be given direct political rights?

What foundation exists to give an additional political voice to these boards.

What do we do as the body politic, when the GOP is characterized as religious, hooded KKK homosexual behind the pew pedophiles that killed the last spotted owl?

How about when the Dems are communist, pinko jihadists intent on saving the snail darter by making humans extinct?

After the 2004 election, few of those capable of thought doubted whether the Swift Boat adds were effective, even though they were not true. Nevertheless the election was certified.

Are these the rubbish ads we want the freedom for? From corporations??????

I for one, can't accept the slimmest sliver of possibility that you think this is an improvement for our country or any country. It beggars logic and common sense. What am I missing? Action in the name of freedom? Do it because you can?
6. Mitch Mulhall | January 29th, 2010 at 8:35 am

Good Morning Michael,

Have you read the Citizens United v FEC decision? Apparently not, for if you had, you wouldn't raise this tripe about foreign entities. It is illegal for foreign individuals and corporations to seek political influence through campaign donations. Nothing in CU v FEC changes that.

I'm not going to touch your views on corporations. In my view, you can’t kvetch about corporations and give unions a pass. Besides, my point that corporations are people withstands your sophistry that it’s possible to litigate against corporate entities and individuals.

Hi Ed,

Thoughtful questions, all. The most thought provoking was, “Since corporations do not vote, why would they be given direct political rights?”

Are the rights conferred by the Constitution political?

In my view, McCain Feingold seeks not to control campaign expenditures, but to control who speaks by imbuing the Federal Election Commission with the power of censorship. If the FEC can censor a movie under the Law, are there any limits to what it can censor? When Justice Roberts asked Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart to define the limits of Law's authority, Stewart indicated there were none, that the Law controls what books you can buy, what cable TV you can watch, what radio program you can listen to, what blogs you can surf... even what you can download to your trusty Kindle or shiny new iPad—it’s all fair game. Controlling what can be said and when it can be said is just another way of controlling who speaks.

I don’t support the SCOTUS ruling because it confers “political rights” to “corporations” (and in my view it does not), but because it rejects what in my opinion is an insidious attempt to legislate what free speech can be. Why insidious? By controlling what fuels make the campaign rhetoric flame, such Laws enter the realm of gerrymandering.

Cheers,
7. Edward Troy | January 29th, 2010 at 3:13 pm

Yes this was a free speech veil covering for corporate political advertising. yet we are not free to yell fire in a movie theatre, nor are we able to incite riots -- very subjective. We also can't suggest violence against people especially the president. What line if any will there be? Precedents do exist even though 103 years of them have been tossed.

For me, this rivals Bush v. Gore for partisan political adjudications.

I did over reach by implying that the rights were direct when they are clearly indirect. That not withstanding the effect will be the same. Such narrow decisions on a sliver of legal issue is usually considered "bad law."

Morally, for me it is down with the Taney court's Dredd Scott decision.
8. Mitch Mulhall | January 30th, 2010 at 11:53 pm

Ed-

Yes, SCOTUS rulings have established that you shouldn't yell "Fire" in a movie theater. I regard that as a constructive responsibility of the right of free speech, not a limitation on it.

I don't see how you can view this as a partisan adjudication. SCOTUS cannot consider evidence that has not already been introduced in lower courts. The questions they consider are narrow.

I agree this leaves a door open for the kinds of abuses that make it easy to vilify corporations and wealthy people. Shutting that door at the cost of the First Amendment just seems to me like a really bad idea.

Cheers,
9. Edward Troy | February 1st, 2010 at 8:39 am

Mitch-

There are already as you confirm as limitations, which you are calling constructive responsibility. These are precedent to this decision and regarding the examples in question, have not been struck. Because those previous adjudications specific to those examples of free speech still stand this makes this decision very narrow as you agree, and because of the voting split and targeted action or subject of the suit, extremely partisan from my perspective.

The next time there is a landmark case, just for fun and laughs why don't we make a justice by justice prediction on how they will vote. If predictions are accurate or very close and I think they will be, partisan ideology will reign triumphant over the "good" willed down by the founding fathers.

Yes, Marbury v. Madison certainly set a precedent when it comes to partisan issues, executive power and adjudication. Nevertheless, there appears to have been a slow fitful evolution, within SCOTUS decisions, towards liberation of people. However, since the Warren Court, I see a slow deepening reaction to that general trend.