Recent Updates
January 03, 2012
Medical Marijuana and Social Security Disability
December 30, 2011
Punitive Damages
December 20, 2011
Medical Marijuana and Your Workers' Compensation Claim
December 13, 2011
What Do You Do?: Making Sense of My New Profession
December 13, 2011
Telephone Record Theft
Archives
WE THE PEOPLE, OR WE THE CORPORATIONS?
Posted by: Christopher Richter
February 18, 2010
Topic: Corporate Free Speech
Many are probably wondering what the fuss is about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Now this is a lengthy document that I would not expect anyone to read, but it has been provided for your own leisurely reading. For years, this country has been trying to regain elections as the voice of the people, the true citizens of the United States. This one decision has stated that corporations should be treated as citizens, they should have a voice in the political elections. However, at the same time that corporation has all kinds of economic perks and privileges like limited liability, perpetual life, bankruptcy protection and so on, that mean that we're basically subsidizing these entities, and sometimes directly, as we saw with the bailouts, but then they're allowed to turn around and spend money to determine our political future, our political destiny. So it's a very dangerous moment for American political democracy.
There's an unbroken line of precedent, beginning with Chief Justice Marshall in the Dartmouth College case in the 1800s, all the way through Justice Rehnquist, even, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, saying that a corporation is an artificial creation of the state. It's an instrumentality that the state legislatures charter in order to achieve economic purposes. The key term being "economic purpose," a corporation only has one master, profit. Its foremost legal obligation is to make profit for its shareholders. A corporation does not value human rights, civil rights, the environment, healthcare, education or the long haul, other than its own economic viability.
Does it make sense that we limit the influence of corporations and individuals in terms of direct contributions to elected candidates, but we permit a corporation to spend limitlessly on television programming, commercials and/or theatrical productions? In today's society, the TV commercial is too powerful. It reaches millions, who are only passively engaged, at best. If seen enough, it become almost subliminal. There is no accountability with a commercial. Sure, if there is a half truth it can be exposed by one of the talking heads on news programs or in articles in newspaper s or internet sites, but that only happens when a citizen is engaged enough to search for the facts and get the whole truth. Too much propaganda, half-truths, and parsing of words will happen out of context. Will we really be electing those who fit our ideals and policies, or will be just be puppets of the corporations who will package positions in sound bytes and simple phrases? If you think it has not happened already, really look at Tort Reform in this country. Look at who is really benefiting from Tort Reform, the insurance companies and the corporations. It is all for limiting their liability at the expense of the person who was critically injured, who lost their livelihood, or lost their loved one. Look at your workers' compensation laws, look at the caps put in place to assure that the workers' compensation carrier can limit their exposure in the event of serious injury.
In 2008, Exxon Mobile made profits of $85 billion. If they took a mere 10% of those profits, $8.5 billion, they would be able to swing almost any election, any ballot measure, all of our futures when you consider that is more than three times what the Obama, McCain and all House and Senate candidates spent in 2008. And it likely won't be Exxon Mobile listed as who paid for the commercial, but some other corporate entity like the United Citizens for Just Causes or some other corporate name the disguises the true messenger.
