By John Leschak, Columnist
The “non-activist” judges at the Supreme Court have done it again! In the recent Citizens United case, the Court invalidated part of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act prohibiting corporations (and unions) from paying for election ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Five Justices held that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. They reasoned that since an individual would be allowed to make these ads, a corporation must be too because the First Amendment does not differ based on a person’s identity, even if that “person” is only a business entity.
Justice Stevens poked fun at this reasoning in his dissent. “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech,” wrote Stevens. Or, even better, if a corporation is a person, shouldn’t it be able to run for political office? Actually, one already is! Murray Hill Incorporated has recently announced it will be running for Congress. As its campaign materials state, “Until now, corporations’ only influenced politics with high-paid lobbyists and backroom deals. But today, thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, corporations now have all the rights the founding fathers meant for us. It was their dream to build the best democracy money can buy.” What’s next, a decision that Exxon Mobil can run for President?
Critics of the decision say it will lead to the flooding of future elections with corporate money. I don’t know where these people have been the last several decades, because American elections are more flooded with cash from corporation coffers than New Orleans was with bayou water from Katrina. The decision isn’t going to have much of a practical impact. As Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, noted, “Even if the law were constitutional, wealthy corporations could still lobby elected officials… And wealthy individuals and un-incorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts.”
At issue in Citizens United was not whether corporations and the rich will continue to dominate our political system – that is a reality far beyond question (at least for the men and two women of the Supreme Court). Rather, the issue was whether or not corporations can spend even more of their money on buying political influence. Gee, it’s really nice that corporations have all that money laying around to spend on politics, but perhaps they should be spending it on something else. Hey corporations, how about giving back to the community instead?
There was a time in America when a business was a community institution, when profits were loaned back to the community for local housing and education, instead of being hoarded for individual gain. However, as capitalism has evolved, it has disconnected the fate of the corporations. from the fate of its employees and the communities they live in. As a result, today higher profits no longer mean more job security or better wages. Just look at the news! Last month major US banks reported gigantic profits in 2009. Goldman Sachs reported $13.4 billion in profits, and JP Morgan Chase reported making $11.7 billion. Meanwhile, the official unemployment rate remains over 9 percent (the actual rate is even higher), and the day before President Obama gave his State of the Union speech, USA Today reported that the number of people on welfare rose 18 percent in 2009.
If the Supreme Court wants to let corporations spend more money on political “influence,” I say sure, let the corporations go ahead and spend like mad. After all, unlike the unemployed folks on welfare, you got the bling to fling, right Mr. CEO? But, I say we should tax every single dollar they spend on politics and then use the tax proceeds to provide a basic survival income to every person in the US struggling to keep their head above water. We can’t allow our fellow Americans to drown in the corporate flood like Bush let New Orleans drown in Katrina.