The Supreme Court has just decided to allow corporations (and, on the same token, unions) to spend as much money as they desire when it comes to campaign contributions and/or "political speech" (ad campaigns for or against individuals running for office or ballot issues). The decision was 5-4. The majority is attempting to explain this hugely naive and insanely destructive judgment by couching it as a First amendment issue. This is yet another affirmation that corporations are treated exactly the same as individuals.
Now, let that soak in for a minute. A corporation is a massive entity with huge pockets and deep interests. An individual is just that, an individual. There are some individuals that have vast sums of money that they can contribute to political parties, individuals running for office, or other political issues . Individuals can also contribute to a cause, like Prop. 8 for example. The difference is that no individual will have the same amount of resources at his/her disposal as a corporation. A corporation is guided by only one principle, and that is looking out for its own interests. That is not unreasonable, but to allow them unfettered access to political speech, elections, referendums, or what have you, goes beyond unfair and becomes plain evil. It is evil because corporations now have free license to make any claim they so choose and to back it up with relentless media campaigns. Free speech is free speech, but this goes beyond free speech and enters the realm of manipulation of information and thought. The majority is adamant that the restrictions that had been in place were a form of governmental censorship. That is horse shit. It is a restriction that was put in place to limit the abuse of power.
The fact that this judgment was issued during the presidency of a Democrat and during a period in time where the Democratic party had been enjoying decisive majorities in both houses of congress should not be lost on anyone. Barack Obama made history with his candidacy for president because he sought micro donations from the public at large rather than pandering to big business/corporate America for a majority of his funding. That scared them (Big Business) because it drove a wedge between them and the political process. No longer could they dictate the outcome of elections, bills, referendums, etc. by simply out spending the opposition. And, let us not forget that just two days ago those fucking Massholes essentially ended the period of Democrat impunity; though I would argue that the blue dog democrats had made it almost impossible for anything to pass without huge compromises, which essentially gutted any and all meaningful legislation that the majority or the president attempted to put forth.
This decision is as political as it gets. What these scum bags have done is effectively opened the door for special interests and big business and granted them unfair access to the political process, access that no single individual can or will ever have. If you thought the whole "k-street" lobbyist scandal was bad, just you wait. The republicans are reveling in this decision because they, as a party, are the darlings of 'big business.'
They say that it violates corporations' first amendment rights to limit them when it comes to political free speech (more to the point, limiting the amount of money they can throw around). I completely disagree. First off, corporations are not individuals. That fact is self-evident. If you don't understand that or disagree then you are part of the problem. Second, corporations already have a huge amount of representation for their interests, they are called lobbyists and political action committees. Third, corporations are responsible to their shareholders first and foremost. Those shareholders are individual voters who will likely vote for things that are the most closely align with their interests. So why do they now get to have, essentially, a more prominent vote than those of us who do not share the same interests?
To say that this is not the worst blow to our democracy since George W. Bush's two fraudulent elections is to completely misunderstand the very clear, and horrendous, implications for the future of our democracy. The majority said that the legislative branch should now look at making laws that force corporations to disclose when/where/how they will spend the shareholders money when it comes to political concerns. But what the fuck does that matter? The shareholders are just an extension of the self-interest that guides the corporations. So what, now we all have to join corporate teams for our votes to count as much as the next guys? This is a disgusting ploy by conservative capitalist fascists to further separate the average person from the political process.
Who ever makes the most noise wins. Sadly, in this era of American Idol style democracy, whoever shouts the loudest or comes out with the most advertisements will win. It is called propaganda and misinformation. If a corporation seeks to kill a bill or destroy a candidate, all they have to do is purchase more air time or ad space than the supporters of said bill or candidate. They can say whatever wild shit they want, as long as they keep saying it over and over and at a higher volume than the opposition. The opposition will not be able to respond to the false allegations fast enough for the public to ever get the correct story. Take the recent fanatical opposition to health Care reform. None of those Tea Party idiots even know what is in the bill. They just heard from Fox news that there are going to be death panels and that was that. They so feared the federal government telling them what to do (because they never ever do that...laws anyone?)that they destroyed the best chance we have ever had at getting everyone in this country insured and granting them full access to health care. It didn't matter that every claim that they made in opposition to the health care overhaul was refuted by fact-check organizations, because they just kept yelling loud and employing fear tactics.
So how is it that they missed the very real and harmful outcomes that this judgment will produce? How can they sit there and say that this will not affect our political process in a way that we have tried to avoid since the founding of our democracy? This decision flies in the face of over 100 years of precedent. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't precedent exactly what we use to dictate the outcome of the judicial process? I am not typically a conspiracy guy, but this smacks of Newt Gingrich's 'moral majority' and Karl Rove's vision for a permanent Republican majority.
Republicans and libertarians like to make budget/tax cuts; because apparently no one ever explained to them how we collectively pay for our shared social institutions. The very first thing that they target is education. This is not an accident. A primary prerequisite for a healthy democracy is an educated populace. They know this and that is why they seek to destroy the institution of education and block access to information or a 'soap box' for those who are not from privileged backgrounds or for those who uphold an alternate ethos. If they keep the populace ignorant then they can more easily control them through various hyperbolic media outlets (Fox, Wall Street Journal, talk radio...etc.). Education is not about facts and dates. Education is about learning how to be a critical thinker and gaining a zeal for understanding the entire process/history of something. It is about embracing intricacies and understanding differences. It is about getting people to stop looking at the world as if everything were black and white. It gets people comfortable with the fact that there is a lot of gray out there, and you have to engage multiple sources to even come close to 'truth.' So here they have a perfect opportunity. Keep the populace misinformed and uneducated and you can maintain power through "free speech."
So now we are left with a political landscape that is so hostile to democracy that they have effectively rendered individual voters useless. It is a moot point. The corporate interests will trump those of the every day citizen, and somehow they think this is ok, that this is constitutional. Did they read the same constitution that I have read? I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar, but I am completly perplexed at how they have come to these conclusions? We are witnessing the decline of our once noble experiment. The conservatives have become so power hungry and intolerant that they will stop at nothing to maintain their strangle hold on as many branches of the federal government as they can. Now that corporations have more say than individuals (which is, inherently, the logical outcome of a decision such as this)it is only a matter of time before the average citizen no longer gets to cast a meaningful vote at all; unless he/she belongs to a corporate gang that is. We are now allowing the corporations to 'educate' us on the issues. Is it going to come as a surprise to anyone that they will manipulate the facts and gloss over the inconsistencies in their accounts? There is no way they will be able to avoid pushing their own ideals/ideas/values/interests/agendas onto uneducated/undereducated voters now that they have the green light to do so. Censorship and misinformation are the same fucking thing, they both deny access to information. Their argument that the spending limits were a form of governmental censorship are ridiculous and hollow, especially since they have just allowed for the massive misinformation policies to gain constitutional protection. Congratulations, you fucking douche bags, you have destroyed my country.
The Bitter Buffalo
1-22-2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment