This isn't about U.S. citizens uniting in America. It's not about any unifying force at all-quite the opposite. It is really about something very important that happened about two years ago that has fundamentally changed America. It all started in 2002 when Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold sponsored a law to reform federal election finance by prohibiting corporations from influencing elections. It passed and became the McCain-Feingold Act. Fast forward to 2008 when a corporation called Citizens United tried to broadcast a film called "Hillary: The Movie". It was a film critical of Hillary Clinton, who was running for President at the time. The Federal Elections Commission stopped the airing of this film, saying that it violated the McCain-Feingold Act. Fast forward again through a series of Federal Court case hearings on this matter until we end up at the Supreme Court in 2009. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.
In January 2010 The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in the case overturning lower court rulings and all previous precedent, and found in favor of Citizens United. The Court held that corporations had First Amendment rights to exercise free speech and that the use of money in the exercise of free speech was acceptable, and therefore was Constitutionally protected and could not be infringed upon by the Federal government. If that sounds like a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo- it is not!
This Supreme Court decision is the most significant change to existing law relating to how our government is elected, in our history. The significance is that it gives corporations personhood with Constitutional Rights and makes money the same as speech. On the face of it, we know intuitively and intellectually that corporations are not people; and we know that money is not speech. Yet the conservative members of the Court decided they are. This was the hope of conservatives (Republicans) for generations, and it finally happened. This ruling allows corporations both domestic and foreign to place unlimited amounts of money-that is, influence- into our system of elections. It allows them to finance Political Action Committees (PACs and Super PACS) anonymously with unlimited freedom to spend on the candidate or issue of their choosing.
Theoretically any company from anywhere in the world could pour millions or billions of dollars into our election process and we would never know who did it or what they hope to gain. Let's face it, no one or no corporation invests huge sums of money into elections without some assurances that they will hold sway over the candidate who wins office. Corporations do not contribute large sums of money out of the goodness of their hearts- they do it to get something in return. Why does Exxon Mobile contribute to campaigns? -for favorable environmental and tax laws, and tax credits. Why do you think we give tax payer funded subsidies to the most profitable company in the world? Why does Halliburton contribute?- for favorable defense contracting positions. Why does G.E. contribute? for tax breaks and favorable foreign trade regulations. Think of what the Koch brothers have done with their money. The list is endless. The Supreme Court gave corporations a blank check, with no disclosure so we can never even see the faces of those who rule our country.
Let's move from the theoretical to the practical. Folks, it already happened! Immediately after this ruling we had off-year elections in 2010. Do you remember what happened? The Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives with the election of 84 new Republican members- most of whom had never held any office before. It was unprecedented and it happened with the unlimited funding of corporate backers. The result was a gridlocked Congress in 2011 that accomplished nothing except to threaten the full faith and credit of the nation, while protecting the 1% and the corporations. These bankrolled tea-party types brought us to the brink of default and financial disaster.
Several states elected new Governors in 2010. We got Walker in Wisconsin- Kasich in Ohio-Synder in Michigan- and Scott in Florida, all Republicans backed by well funded anonymous PACs and corporate contributions. The immediate result was an orchestrated attack on the working people of this country and the public employees that serve us everyday. How did we go from revering the first responders (after 9-11) to despising and villianizing them in 2011? How did our teachers become public enemy No.1? In a broader sense how did America overwhelmingly reject this agenda in 2008 with the landslide election of Obama, to once again looking to the same corporation friendly policies that got us into this mess? The answer is MONEY! Unlimited and anonymous spending by corporations and unfettered Super PAC spending is the reason this happened. It is the only variable that is essentially different. Money has the power to persuade- money has the power to influence. And, those with money will always use it to their own advantage.
As I watched the caucus results from Iowa the other night I was struck with the irony of that contest. Republicans who so wanted the Citizens United decision were the first to be personally victimized by it on a national stage. Two weeks ago Newt Gingrich was riding high in Iowa and nationally- nearly anointed the Republican nominee for President. Then the Romney PAC and the Paul PAC unleashed millions of dollars in negative TV ads against Gingrich. The result was an unprecedented fall from grace for Gingrich and he ended up a weak 4th place and out of the spotlight. He was destroyed by the use funds specifically designed to take him out- all the while Romney recited patriotic song lyrics and acted innocent. Granted Newt's own record was despicable and the ads were essentially true, but the point is that if you have the money- you can just destroy someone by sheer volume of negative advertising. It didn't lead to a clear Romney win, but the destructive power of spending was undeniable. The Citizens United ruling enabled him to take out his chief rival in that contest. Santorum is the latest flavor of the month- let's see what the anonymous PACs do to him.
Thankfully some of the damage was undone by the elections in 2011. (please see my blog "A Super Tuesday for Us" for my take on those elections and initiatives) Nonetheless it is clear that unless this ruling is changed by the Court itself, or by law, or constitutional amendment, we will be at the mercy of the corporations and the very wealthy. This is not American democracy. Let me leave you with the words of Supreme Court Associate Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion in the Citizens United case:
"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."
Thanks for looking in.
Note: all five Justices who ruled in favor of Citizens United were Republican appointees to the Court. Three of the four dissenting Justices were Democratic appointees. Justice Stevens who wrote the dissenting opinion was a Republican appointee.
Gross.
ReplyDelete