UNITED STATES OF CORPORATE AMERICA: Gateway to Greenback Governance
WASHINGTON DC (IDN) - In a split (5-4) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on January 22, 2010 that could result in American democracy being remodelled as a caricature of itself. It could eventually be transformed from the U.S. into the United States of Corporate America.
The ruling removed key constraints on corporate financial involvement in U.S. election campaigns. The private sector is now at liberty to use unlimited amounts of its accumulated funds to influence the political process and thereby determine its outcome.
The ruling:
- eliminates a law which prohibited the corporate sector from using its “general treasuries” or accumulated funds to finance advertisements directly advocating the election or defeat of a specific candidate(s). This law had stood for 63 years.
- ends the existing prohibition on corporations airing political advertisements in the 60 days immediately preceding a general election, and in the 30 days preceding a primary.
As before, corporations are not permitted to contribute directly to candidates from their treasuries.
The ruling is expected to apply as well to labour unions although, of course, the corporate sector has much more disposable wealth that it can deploy politically than do workers’ representatives.
EARLY WINNERS
The legal issue which led to the ruling was presented to the justices as a First Amendment (freedom of speech) matter, and the majority ruling was crafted on that basis (see “Getting There” below).
This caused some confusion among observers and commentators, particularly academics whose fidelity to the First Amendment is almost theological and who therefore found it difficult to oppose the ruling.
They acknowledged, nevertheless, that, yes, the ruling could open the door to the corporate sector using their bulging treasuries to “buy” loyalty or remove the “disloyal” from office, thus taking control of the political process by remote control.
Chuck Todd, Political Director of NBC News, cites attorney Ben Ginsberg in a concise and informative description of what the Supreme Court’s decision foreshadows:
“One, it's going to place political candidates at a significant disadvantage to corporations and organized labour. Controlling the issues they want to run on will become a real challenge, as will having sufficient funds to portray their positions and images."
“Two, it could lead to the extinction of America's political parties. With the limits on the amounts and sources of funds they can accept, the parties will be bit players compared to outside groups that can now conduct those core functions with unlimited funds from any source.
“Three, it's going to benefit wealthy individuals, leading to a number of new outlets who can carry the messages that these donors have wanted carried.
“Four, it will render 527s obsolete. (These are political organizations that function independent of a candidate’s campaign. The “527” refers to a section of the tax code.)
“Five, it's going to be good for the ad-makers and TV networks.”
Viewing the ruling from much the same perspective, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said, moments after the thrust of the ruling was known: “The Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next year’s elections. It won’t be Republicans, it won’t be Democrats, it will be corporate America.”
GETTING THERE
The opening rounds of the “U.S. of Corporate America” story began in 2008 when a group that calls itself “Citizens United” released a film under the title “Hillary: The Movie.”
The film was dedicated to Barbara Olson, who tragically died on Flight 77, the aircraft that was flown into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Olson was a critic of Hillary Clinton and the author of 'Hell To Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton'.
The film has been described as a critique of the current Secretary of State, and the only positive line about her is said to be: “Looks good in a pantsuit.”
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) restricted the film’s distribution. 'Citizens United' considered FEC’s action a curtailment of their right to free speech.
They argued against the perceived restriction in a lower court which upheld FEC’s position. The court held that the film was a 90-minute campaign advertisement whose sole purpose was to demonstrate that Clinton was not fit to hold the presidential office to which she aspired.
“Citizens United” then took the matter to the Supreme Court where its lead attorney was Ted Olson, former Solicitor General, and the husband of Barbara Olson at the time of her death. Olson had also appeared for George W. Bush in the celebrated legal tussle which resulted in his first term as president. Then, too, the verdict was reached by a split 5-4 decision.
OUTRAGE
David Bossie, president of “Citizens United” was quoted in the 'Washington Post' as saying: “We have been trying to defend our First Amendment rights for many, many years. We brought the case hoping that this would happen…to defeat McCain-Feingold” (i.e. the bipartisan campaign finance reform law, jointly sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Russell Feingold).
Thus, the head of the advocacy group himself acknowledged that the exercise was directed at breaking down legally accepted restraints on corporate financial intrusion in the political process.
For a co-author of the legislation that 'Citizens United' targeted, McCain was remarkably lukewarm in his reaction to the ruling. He said: "I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions."
Feingold, in a much more robust response, commented: “This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns.”
Obama, an expert in constitutional law, was clearly outraged. He said: “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
The court’s ruling was delivered on the same day that he proposed restraints on the kinds of activities that big banks engage in, as they relentless pursue the big bangs of big bucks. That was the pursuit that eventually produced not bangs but the hollow thuds of recession.
PROTECTION
Winston Churchill once said: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Churchill is unlikely to have included within his definition of an acceptable form of democracy one that has been deformed beyond recognition.
Freedom of speech is an integral component of democracy and deserves full protection. The people’s right to choose their representatives, safe from the unrestrained intervention of special interests deserves equal protection.
If that right is usurped by the corporate sector, democracy will falter and descend into the realms of governance by greenback. Concerned voters will watch with considerable interest as to how exactly a polarized Congress and Obama will combine to prevent such a debacle. (IDN-InDepthNews/23.01.2010)
Copyright © 2009 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters
-----
The writer has served as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and the USA. He was Chairman of the Commonwealth Select Committee on the media and development, Editor of the Ceylon ‘Daily News’ and the Ceylon ‘Observer’, and was for a time Features Editor and Foreign Affairs columnist of the Singapore ‘Straits Times’. He is on the IDN editorial board.