February 4, 2010
Justice vs. democracy
The incredible, albeit predictable, ruling that corporations, like plaintiffs in the "one man one vote" decisions, are citizens with First amendment rights would have been a joke when I was in law school. I can hear some of my favorite profs saying, as if they were alive today, "Get serious. Corporations are created by the government for economic reasons not to run for office or to determine through their accumulated wealth who shall regulate them. They are creatures of the state not the womb."
But we are where the majority of the Supreme Court has put us. It is Us vs. Them. Plutocracy vs. democracy. The rich vs. the rest of us.
Justice Clarence Thomas defended the decision in Florida this week. His nonsense reminds me of the open letter to Justice Thomas written by Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr.
Thomas, the Scalia acolyte, was quoted saying, "I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it (our decision) were the New York Times Company and the Washington Post Company. These are corporations." Not content with that simplistic observation, he went on: "It would be a mistake to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as some sort of beatific action." Whoa Nelly!
Higginbotham put it this way to Thomas: "I wonder whether the majority of the Supreme Court will continue to retreat from protecting the rights of the poor, women, the disadvantaged, minorities, and the powerless. If the majority does continue to retreat, I wonder whether you, an African-American, will be part of the majority." Wonder no more. He is a big part of the retreat. Sad to say.
post a letter about this blog »
It is precisely the speech that Goverment seeks to silence that the First Ammendment is intended to protect.
-RMJ | Hudson, WI | February 4, 2010
I don't like what this is probably going to do to elections, but I have to be honest. I don't see any reason that WEAC or Wisconsin Right to Life should be treated any differently from Charlie Sykes or Fighting Bob.com
If you've got a strong argument to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
-Jeff | Madison | February 4, 2010
If corporations are given constitutional rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (profit), shouldn't those responsible for their demise, IE corp. heads, board of directors, be charged with murder?
-Geo Parrino | Oconomowoc | February 4, 2010
Jeff:
Here is the counter-argument:
Unfettered funding by corporations moves our nation toward a plutocracy, - a democracy of, by and for corporations rather than of, by and for the people.
In fact, a strong argument can be made that we are already a plutocracy.
Proof:
The average congressional race in the USA now costs over $1 million. Considering that a congressperson has two years, or 104 weeks in office prior to the next election, that means the congressperson has to raise about $10,000 a week! Certainly congresspersons are not receiving that amount of cash from the average, joe-six-pack citizen who contributes $50.00 to a political campaign. Hefty donations keep the vast majority of Americans from having a real voice in their federal government.
Is it any wonder then, why congress has provided hundreds of hundreds of billions in subsidies to banks, auto companies, oil companies, Etc. and so little money for education and other public improvements? The system of privately funded campaigns is corrupt in that the voices of the many are drowned-out by the voices of the few who have money. When I say our political system is corrupt, that is not to say it is illegal. I mean corrupt like a bad computer file: it works, but very poorly. Our privately funded campaign system is nothing less than legalized bribery!
Nor is this a republican or democrat issue. For all his populist rhetoric, President Obama has the exact same fiscal & monetary policies as President Bush. Both camps are funded by the corporate elite for the benefit of their stock holders. This is a very important point, because business NEVER donates, it invests! The difference being that one expects a return for their investment. In my opinion, the Supreme Court decision serves only to make the existing plutocracy less transparent.
-Fred | New Berlin, WI | February 5, 2010
current
--------
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003