Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Laws of Power
72
The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (PDF link) is a grave blow to democracy, and a great victory to the rich and powerful.
Imagine: the same corporations that lied to you about the dangers of cigarette smoke, the guys who fought seat belt laws, who don't want nosy safety inspectors poking around in their plants - those corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads.
Corporations
like Enron, who made billions through fraud, can now spend those
billions making sure that only friendly politicians get elected.
In America, a corporation is a legal entity that has the same rights as any individual.
There is a problem with this, however. Individuals have limited time and resources, and a moral compass that comes as part of the package for the vast majority of us.
Corporations have no conscience. Their sole purpose is to make money for their owners. Their resources are limited only by the amount of money they can make.
Our society is rapidly heading back to the middle ages, when kings and nobles held the power of life and death over the common people.
Society is a system. And by system I mean a system like an ecosystem or a weather system:
Just like with a weather system, there are certain laws that can be applied to understanding the system we live in. Some of these laws:
1. people in power will always act to protect that power and if possible increase it.
2. Wealth provides tools to increase power.
3. Because wealth and power provide tools to increase power, those with power and wealth will always find more and more ways to increase their wealth and their power. This is why for most of human history since the birth of civilization most humans have been, basically, slaves, working to enrich the powerful few.
4. Because those with power need to find new ways to enrich themselves, those without power will always tend to face more and more exploitation.
5. The irony of this situation is that the more inequality there is, the less effectively society functions.
6. Another way to look at 5 above is: the more equal people are in a society, the better the society functions. Equal opportunity means that more people can apply themselves to creating wealth/liberty/the pursuit of happiness.
7. Rules 4, 5, and 6 mean that societies will tend to become less equal over time - and will also tend to function less smoothly over time. Freedom and equality are essential to the long term health and happiness of everyone in the society - in a functional sense, not just a moral sense.
8. One effective way for the powerless to fight the powerful is through organized, mass action - like the labor movement or the civil rights movement.
We are seeing laws 1 through 7 coming to fruition right now.
It is time for us to get organized, kids. Educate yourself, and get on the phone with your representatives, at the local level, the state level, and the federal level.
If you wait, your children will be serfs.
- Thinking in Systems
- Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in A System
An essay by Donella Meadows that is worth thinking about. - Systems Thinking
- System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CommentsLoading...
This is well said and right to the point, Will. Actually my children are already serfs--well, two of them are. The other one can't get a find a job. (I live in Michigan.)
I thought the last election involved obscene amounts of money. This insures that trend will get worse and worse and our votes will not matter. It's not a thing to take lying down.
william,
frightening times are ahead for us all. our voter registration cards are now, as bushjunior would say, "a goddamn piece of paper."
equally as frightening is the fact that many americans see this, as sweetiepie said above, as a great win for america.
i only thought the previous eight years were a debacle.
good job, once again.
William I just did a hub on the same topic. It is sad that we have been so focused on other things that this slid through without any real objection from the public. Anyone who hails this as a victory has no idea what makes a democracy.
You nailed it William. This is a radical decision which reverses longstanding precedents, making John Roberts a liar because the decision flies in the face of his promise in his Congressional hearing that he would respect precedent and eschew law making by the Court. Moreover, as you point out, aside from legal principles, the decision ignores the fact that there is already too much corporate money sloshing around in Washington and state houses across the land. The practical result of the decision will undermine the already waning public conficence in our government.
The problem is deeper than the ethics of business because all businesses are forced to corrupt their values in order to compete successfully. Since it's effectively one dollar one vote, all businesses try to use government to promote their interests.
Just as the capitalist business has to expand, get taken over, or close, they are compelled to corrupt democracy. If they don't do it, their competitors will which leaves them at a competitive disadvantage. There is a strong commercial disincentive to act ethically.
That's one of the many contradictions of capitalism. Although it pretends that everything is equal in the market, competition and dollar-influence means the market is never fair, nor does it tend to equilibrium. An out-of-work driver doesn't have the same market equality as a corporate transport negotiator.
This judgement though is pretty blatant!
We are moving toward corporate governance and the people who are losing the most do not seem aware of it. The standard of living in the USA has peaked. We re-elect over 90% of our elected officials even though many of them do not represent us in Washington. They know that corporations have the money they want to get re-elected. The corporate lobbyist write most new legislation and our representatives vote it into law. Now the corporations can spend all they want on media campaigns to convince most of us to vote for their candidates and against our own interests.
When I start thinking about stuff like this, the only optimisms that come to mind is: the majority, as in non-corporate common folk, greatly outnumber these corporate big shots & governmental leaders.
Maybe one day, if things continue to get worse, we'll all have a universal resistance and run around this joint yelling, "praise be, anarchy!"
Then, we'll turn this world into a crazy caveman debacle with not so primitive tools...
It would probably be more "fair" and possibly fun, if you know what I mean. Ha-ha!
Nice hub, Will.
Very nice, William.
It has always amazed me how the corporations, aided and abetted by both political parties, mangage to 'rob the bank in broad daylight' and nobody sees it.
But then it took me awhile to wakeup.
Lyle
How can a thing with no mouth have freedom of speech?
How can a thing with no brain be expected to think rationally?
How can a thing with no heart be expected to do the right thing?
The answer, it cannot. I think we should outlaw campaign contributions to candidates under the reasoning: If you cannot vote in an election, you are not allowed to influence it. Soft money is not the problem, it's the cold hard cash delivered by PACs and Lobbyists that are destroying America, and through America the World.
Great Hub, as usual.
Great comments everyone. It blows my mind - these corporations, which have perfected the art of advertisement and spin by marketing their products, now have the ability to spend whatever they want marketing and spinning political candidates.
I guess I'm in the extreme minority here. I don't believe that corporations are inherently evil, just as I don't think that labor unions are inherently evil. The people who run them do lots of bad things. Labor unions, and leftist 'big' groups can be just as corrupt and 'powerful'as the big evil corporations u point out. I don't like corporations spending large amounts of money for political/issues oriented ads either, but they have a right. It is a free speech issue. I wonder if all of u who seem to have such hatred for evil right wing corporations and interest groups, would not be hypocritical, and have the same venom for more left leaning groups? Or does it not matter, as long as if fits ur views? Sorry, I get fired up when it comes to things like this. I don't like the campaign election laws either, but don't just blame corporations, and lobbyists in this. Politicians, and GREED IN GENERAL is really the culprit here.
Good info and job as usual by the way!
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said it is good to have a revelution every 100 years. We are about 130 years overdue.
One of the biggest problems is the over-representation of cows and prairie dogs in the U.S. Senate. Somebody pointed out that the Senators who were in charge of the health care reform bill negotiations represented only five percent of the people of the U.S. Also, the country is being ill-served by the filibuster-cloture process which has been likened to a bus with every passenger able to put their foot on the brake.
That corporations have the same rights as people is just ridiculous. Corporations inherently have more power because a corporation is a large group of people pooling their money in order to make money. That is not a person. Not long ago, the right was complaining that the Supreme Court was enacting law and taking that power away from the Senate and Congress. So, what are they saying now?
Thanks for the comments, all.
Shazz - It's not that corporations are inherently evil - it's that they are inherently amoral. A corporation is a legal entity that exists to make money for its owners. Acting ethically, in many cases, would be acting against the best interest of the owners of the corporation, and against the purpose of the corporation.
Corporations are incapable of acting ethically or with a conscience. Therefore, they should not be afforded the same rights as living, breathing humans.
William while I rarely agree with anything that you ever have to say , on this one I am in your camp. The decision by the Supreme court is indeed alarming.
Thanks William. Much respect as you know in our disagreements. Of course of ur latest comments responding to me, I hope u mean that for unions, and other interst grops as well. I actually agree with your response.
You make a good point. People should run our gov., not corp.s and special interest groups
William,
Is your cup half full or half empty? Emotions are strong regarding this issue. Is it possible that there may be corporations or labor movements (many of them in and of themselves also corporations)that will funnel money into political ads that support your point of view? Do you really believe that "all" corps are amoral?
"Corporations are incapable of acting ethically or with a conscience." I respectfully disagree with this comment. I choose to believe that there are corps on both sides of the issues. Corps have been involved in the political arena for a long time, mostly behind the scenes. This decision changes the playing field so corps can be more "openly" involved. Whether that is good or bad is yet to be determined.
Extremely well done hub and I agree with you completely. I can't see being allowed to infuse millions of dollars into a campaign having anything whatsoever to do with freedom of speech.
Thanks for the comments, folks.
Shazz - the court decision also applies to nonprofits and to unions. However, Unions and nonprofits exist for fundamentally different reasons from corporations, and they get their lifeblood from donations and grants. Unions exist for the benefit of the workers, and they are funded by the workers. In some industries, union membership is de facto, and I'd say those unions are less successful at actually helping the workers than unions in other industries. Likewise, nonprofits exist to educate or performs some public service. If a nonprofit fails to educate or perform its service it will lose grant money.
A corporation, on the other hand, has as its core purpose profit. If the corporation doesn't profit, it is failing. If ethical behavior would cause the corporation not to profit, the ethical behavior would run against the purpose of the corporation, and the executives of that corporation would not be serving their share holders.
That doesn't mean that a corporation couldn't function ethically, just that it's much more likely to ignore ethics - thus the word amoral instead of immoral.
I think it might be possible to change the way corporate charters are written, to give the public more control over them and force them to act more ethically as they conduct their business.
Also - corporations have much more money than any unions or nonprofits, so even though the decision applies to all three entities, the playing field is not level.
rocketjsqu:
I think my comment to Shazz above is relevant to your comment as well. Perhaps the word "incapable" is a little too strong, but it's true that corporations, as a legal entity, have no motivation to act completely ethically if doing so would cut into profits. Any corporation can choose to act however it's executives and stockholders want, and sometimes that will involve acting ethically.
I dont think corps are evil entities. I do how ever know everyone wants something and those who pay get it. SO those who are pleased...Lets see how they react when they get the prez they want and that person allows that big funding corp to take their jobs outside of the US. what fools we are..at a supreme level.
yep... another crushing blow for those of us who wish more choice in our electoral process. phooey. Great post!
I agree with Mr. Deeds about having too many prarie dogs in government.... and I also agree that we are in for some interesting times ahead...
But hope is not lost...
Take care
Thanks y'all for your comments.
Tremendous article Will, and I can't overstate that. It's a relief to see there is someone out there who can understand the necessary logic of a class system; something that historians have recognized since the beginning of recorded time.
You were right on when you said societies with more economic equality function better. When you look at the "Golden Era" of any civilization you find the same thing is true.
I think we tend not to notice, because technology and industry makes so many comforts available so cheaply, but in reality there hasn't been this kind of disparity between rich and poor in a country since the French Revolution.
And personally, I don't care if a corporation is capable of being moral or not; I still don't want them to be able to buy any election they need to. I thought that was just common sense.
Mr. Taft - thank you very much! It has been said of America that we are more affluent than every before - but also more insecure.
SweetiePie Level 6 Commenter 2 years ago
Kind of sad how some were applauding this as a win for freedom of speech, of course I believe those websites probably are sponsored by a rich corporation.