Friday, January 22, 2010
Democracy Game Over - The Nine Are Abroad
The recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court to allow corporations to donate at will to political campaigns in the U.S. by drawing on First Amendment rights intended for individuals is obscene. I'm not surprised however since my view of the state of this country is grim indeed. It seems as if these black robed agents of doom have truly decided that corporations 'deserve' rights at a time when individual rights are being taken away. The evil generation is pushing, pushing pushing...at all sensible foundations.
I know I've read all the opinions about how this represents "freedom" for the corporations. Who the hell wants to give giant corporations the power to advertise at will against their political opponents? Are you all mad? Yes you are. That's my opinion. Should corporations have voting rights as well? Why not just do away with democracy altogether and let the corporations rule over us completely? The only silver lining I have read about is where some claim that this law will change little since corporations already spend as much as they want for their candidates in covert ways anyway.
Corporations are for-profit organizations by nature. They are NOT individuals. The blurring of this obvious distinction seems to be more then just an intellectual mistake, but rather (like the FBI manipulation of Bin Laden's face to look like a political opponent) an in your face act of bravado evil, and a smiling admission of having sunk to new grotesque depths.
Justice Kennedy writes of a democracy for corporations in his majority opinion:
"Favoritism and influence are not … avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies. It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness.”
He is speaking of a democratic responsiveness towards corporations, not individuals. The 'rights' of the corporation are his concern. One commentator describes this in an article in this way:
"according to the Supreme Court, when corporations spend billions manipulating elections and obtain the desired results, this is “democracy.” This Orwellian characterization of democracy could have been dictated by the hedge funds, financial institutions, insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations that routinely inject billions into American politics in return for favors from both corporate-controlled parties."
Even if you believe the skewed and bizarre notion that corporations should have democratic 'rights', (And I can see the idiots making this brilliant point over a latte in the Harvard Law School cafeteria) still there is nothing democratic in letting them spend as much as they want. Individuals are limited as to what they can spend, why shouldn't Coke Cola, JPMorgan or Chevron also have limits?
Eugene Volokh says in a New York Times opinion section that corporate money has always been in politics anyway, in the form of media corporations. Sure, but that is bad enough! The corporations already control the media. Now you want them piling money into non-stop advertising to grease the wheels even more for their bought and paid for politicians?
It must be noted, despite how much the corrupted, weak and misguided fake democrats have caved in to lobby pressure in a thousand and one ways, it is the old seething bile mouthed brontosaurus of right wing fake conservatives on the court who are bringing on this totalitarianism of corporations.
One Ring to Rule Them All.