I had been expecting the decision for sometime- dreading it almost, hoping that the Supreme Court would take a minute and think about it, but now that's it here and I've digested it for a couple of days, there's a silver lining to the massive cloud of corporate money that the Supreme Court unleashed over our democracy with its decision in Citizens United v. FEC
In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down a ban on corporations spending their own money on political campaigns- and moreover said they could do so without any limits whatsoever. Conservatives (broadly speaking) have hailed the decision as a victory for free speech, but that's where I (very quickly) began disagreeing with Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. To me, this is a very simple issue: the Constitution is there to guarantee the rights of individuals, not groups or corporations- my rights should not now, nor should they be ever predicated on how much money I have. By saying that corporations have no limits on how much they can spend on political speech, the Supreme Court has essentially disenfranchised me and every other American. Exxon Mobil with its billions in profits can essentially buy a politician or an election, while individuals are effectively denied any real means to influence the political process.
Even with the rise of a small dollar donation model, as pioneered initially by Ron Paul in the 2008 Republican Primaries and perfected by Barack Obama and more recently Scott Brown, individuals are still effectively denied a means to influence the political process. (Billion dollar corporations far outweighing the abilities of the small dollar model to influence elections.) The more money one has, the more political speech one can buy. And I'm sorry, but my right to free speech is not for sale!
That aside- the decision also ignores the reality of the political system we have now. Noted law blogger Ann Althouse made this point:
"But the political speech that the Supreme Court was talking about — advertising and a full-length movie about a candidate — isn't aimed at legislators and trying to influence their votes. It's trying to persuade voters. Why are we calling that lobbying?"
That's the way it's supposed to work, but it doesn't. Everyone knows that it doesn't work this way- but rather, special interest group/corporation/lobbying firm X, gives Congressperson A a hefty donation to their re-election campaign and whether the understanding is implicit or explicit, the idea is when legislation either detrimental or benefitial to said special interest group comes up, Congressperson A will do them a favor and vote the way they want. Voters have very little to do with it- sure the idea may be to persuade voters, but the act of persuading them benefits whom exactly? Congressperson A!
Justice Kennedy's decision is also reprehensible in the fact that it makes no mention whatsoever of foreign corporations and limits on their donations. Corporations, as the court has ruled are made up of individuals and therefore have the same rights as individuals- but Justice Kennedy fails to note that in today's capitalist world corporations are entities that transcend national boundaries. What, if anything, is there to stop other countries from setting up perfectly legal corporations in this country and essentially buying our elections? So far- nothing at all and it could take several years for a court to decide the legality of this open question.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing a blistering dissent gets in some excellent shots at the majority, questioning the precedent that in a very real sense grants corporations the same rights as individuals- what's next, he wonders- will corporations be granted the right to vote? He mounts a stirring defense of the prior laws that the majority overturned, re-affirming the notion that corporations are artificial entities that emanate from the state and therefore can be regulated (to a certain degree) by the state to ensure they do not engage in corrupt activities or activities detrimental to consumers at large.
More interestingly though, is the idea established by the majority: the if corporations are made up of individuals and therefore cannot be denied constitutional rights- as a group, what does that mean for any number of issues? If 'groups' of people have the same rights as individuals, what does that mean for affirmative action? For gay marriage? For things like pay equity or the right to choose? By establishing the fact that groups of individuals (in the form of corporations, at least) have the same constitutional rights as individuals, the groundwork is laid for all kinds of interesting things. (Another open question: are labor unions the same as corporations? Justice Kennedy apparently uses the two terms interchangeably at various points throughout his opinion, but never specifically touches on it. If it turns out that labor unions are the same as corporations, then you can bet that any Democratic objections to the decision will evaporate quickly.)
The majority, despite the many flaws in Kennedy's opinion, is on firm ground with regards to one point and one point alone: the current mess of campaign finance regulations we have essentially means that in order to avoid the risk of criminal sanctions, whichever group of people wishes to engage in political speech has to essentially check with the government to make sure it's ok- which is wrong on I don't know how many levels. So score at least one for the majority on that alone...
Having digested the bulk of this news, I have to say, I am now firmly of two minds about it- at first, I was outraged at the idea that my constitutional rights would be tied into the idea of how much money I could contribute to the political process- I was outraged that the Supreme Court had essentially put the government up for rent to the highest bidder- and felt that honestly and truly, in another country, where people gave a damn and weren't so freakin' apathetic, people would be literally lighting s--t on fire!
But now- I'm not so sure. Another noted blogger, Glen Reynolds of Instapundit fame wrote a book called 'The Army of Davids' which looked at the trends of individual empowerment and horizontalization of power of all kinds, whether political or entepreneurial or whatever due to the increasing influence of the internet. I'm not entirely sold on the magical power of the internet to affect real political change, but the fact is this: with increased access to the internet, the citizenry of this country has the ability to be more political aware than at any previous time in American history- given the disclosure laws about campaign financing, any corporately sponsored Senators, Congresspeople or Presidential Candidates would surely be found out and subjected to the whim of the electorate. (Which as Martha Coakley found out this week, can be very punishing indeed.)
In other words- can we trust the voters to police this new environment of corporate-free-for-all-ism that the Supreme Court has just ushered in? Ron Paul was incredibly popular and raised a lot of money from small dollar donations in '08- so did President Obama and more recently Senator Elect Scott Brown ran a credible campaign that didn't attract money or attention from the National Republican Party until the closing weeks of his campaign. The recent trends seem to indicate that a small dollar model is becoming increasingly influential and effective in American politics, which makes the idea of voters policing the post Citizens United political realm more credible.
Given the corruption endemic in the current system, it's a safe bet that neither Republicans nor Democrats currently embedded in Washington will 'look a gift horse in the mouth' so to speak and do anything much about this- if, as recent trends suggest, the mobilizing power of the Internet in our political system is refined and perfected and voters can go toe to toe with special interests in the electoral sphere, then Citizens United may well be a big, juicy piece of bait dangled in front of the two parties...
And if they take it, it could be the end of the political system as we know it in the United States. And that's a notion I could get behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment