|
The Damage of Citizens United
The Citizens United decision basically means, if a single corporation spends $700 million in television advertising to tell you that, for example, Senator Bernie Sanders is a “bad person” because he sponsored legislation that limits its profitability, and Sanders can raise only $3 million to defend himself with a few local TV spots, that’s just the reality of “the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
The fact is that about $5 billion was spent in all the political campaigns from coast to coast in the elections of 2008, a bit less than $2 billion of that on the presidential race. Compare that with January 2010, when a small cadre of senior executives and employees of the nation’s top banks on Wall Street split up among themselves over $145 billion in personal bonus money. So when the banks fired a shot across President Obama's bow, , and within two weeks the president had changed his tune on a wide variety of initiatives, ranging from taxes on the wealthy to backing away from truly strong regulations on the banking, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries and instead embracing more cosmetic “reforms.”
There are now no limits to what corporations (or rich individuals using a corporation as a front) can spend to influence elections or ballot measures. Every member of Congress will now know before he or she votes in favor of any legislation that is opposed by a particular industry, or votes against one that is favored by that industry, that this will have consequences come re-election time.
Anyone concerned with the integrity of the political system should note that this decision affects the legitimacy of elections not only of the legislative and executive branches but also of judges. More than 80 percent of the state judges in America have to run for election.
This decision was a naked handoff of raw political power to corporate forces by five unelected judges, and as we saw earlier, the other four members of the Court said so in the plainest and most blunt terms.
Indeed, the First Amendment now protects the “free speech” rights of the presidents of Russia and China and Iran to form corporations in the United States and pour millions of dollars toward supporting or defeating members of Congress or presidential aspirants who favor trade policies or a foreign policy that suits their interests.
This decision also protects the “right” of the largest polluting corporations on earth to politically destroy any politician who wants to give any more authority to the Environmental Protection Agency, or to elevate to elected status any politician who is willing to dismantle the EPA
This Supreme Court decision has vested power in corporations they never had before – to directly affect the outcome of elections for public office and of ballot measures.
Learn more about the reasons for dissenting to the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling in chapter ten, "Wal-Mart Is Not A Person!", of " Rebooting the American Dream". (On Kindle too) |
