Thursday's Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited political spending by corporations may turn out to be George W. Bush's greatest victory, one that could tilt the political landscape in dramatic ways.
The former president managed to get the U.S. into two wars that may prove to be unwinnable, but the court's hotly debated 5-4 ruling -- which far overreached the case that sparked it -- was made possible by Bush's success in getting conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito appointed to the court. Most political analysts and common sense agree that it will stack the deck in favor of future Republican candidates, who tend to be much chummier with big business.
Advocates of the decision claim it is a victory for free speech as defined under the First Amendment, defining money as speech. What it actually does, it seems to me, is give giant corporations the ability to buy so much airtime and ad space that they'll virtually drown out the free speech of ordinary folks. You don't have to pay individual voters in order to buy an election.
Given the economic devastation brought on our country by the irresponsible actions of big banks, the environmental damage associated with big oil, and skyrocketing health care costs related to big pharma, it hardly seems to be a smart idea to augment the mega-companies' mega-lobbying influence with the ability to pour mega-dollars into individual partisan elections.
Our election system is crazy enough as it is -- adding another layer of influence-buying can only make it worse. It doesn't take a political genius to see the court's decision opening a broad new road paved with serious trouble.
I hope Congress will have the good sense and the courage to put the Supreme Court's new majority in its place and bring some sanity back to the system.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Fortunately, we've seen what grassroots fundraising can do in the face of big business. I can only hope that if Congress doesn't step up, that voters will and put their money where their votes are.
Congress....good sense....and courage - those words do not belong in the same sentences unless preceded by the words "does not have"
The Brown victory in Massachusetts shows what most people think about the government's efforts to limit free speech.
Have you read "Worse Than Watergate" by John Dean? It clearly shows after Bush I the results of an Imperial Presidency and Presidential Orders which far overstepped the bounds set by the Constitution on the Executive Branch.
What you reflect is but one of many things done to empower the President and hide dirty tricks. Another was to double the time under a "national security" pretense that Presidential papers become available to the American public.
In fact, whenever a reporter asked a serious question about what Bush was doing, the consistant answer was, "We can't tell you. It is a matter of 'national security.'"
Harper's has just released a revelation that 3 prisoners at Guantanamo committed suicide behind the walls. It is the first of many things about violations of the precious personal rights in a democracy who Constitution guarantees privacy and free speech.
A fearful conservancy just about always leads to opression of the people this government is "supposed" to SERVE!
Gene, you mentioned the Constitution. If you are concerned about the constitutionality of our government, be sure to include the current administration and Congress. I do not defend Bush. That is never my intent. Actions during the Obama administration (bailout, take-over of corporations, health care) clearly go beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
The government, as defined by the Constitution, is not supposed to serve the people. It is supposed to protect the life and liberty it its citizens. Using tax money to provide lawyers for those who make war upon U. S. citizens is both immoral and a perverse construction of constitutional interpretation.
As for the Dean book - I'm sure he relates some accurate events, but like every political has-been, he has an axe to grind.
Stephen--
Actually, John Dean has no particular ax to grind. He was up to his neck in corruption in the Nixon Administration and, according to the preface, felt a citizen's responsibility to tell the public what was going on behind closed doors.
It was far from pretty and involved government abuses aginst privacy as well as sneaky Executive Orders far beyond what had been done in the past per the traditions of the Executive Branch of Government.
Our Constitution is a broad document. To understand it, one must know the historical context. We were basically trying something different than was being done by the monarchies of England and Europe. The ideal was to have a government of the people / by the people / for the people.
The current Administration inherited a mess: failed economy / war costing far more than taxes taken in. The first thing done was to start making government more transparent. If they would make it honest, I would be happy.
We, in 200 years, have recreated pretty much what our ancestors left in England and Europe:
(1) Too many laws
(2) Too much bureacracy
(3) Taxation without representation
(4) Intrusion into business by rules and regs thwarting any new small business
(5) Agencies which don't really know what they are doing
I could name more, but these are the basics.
Our whole concept of government is an adversarial relationship between the branches of government. Thereby, debate on an issue ensues, and the press is supposed to cover it clearly without partisanship.
If the public knows enough, they can tell their Representatives what they think is in their best interest. The dilemma is whether Congress is bought by Corporate America and lobbists or whether they represent the citizens who sent them.
I think term limits should be installed. When representation becomes a profession rather than a service, we are in trouble. When lawyers are in the majority of representatives, we are guaranteed to get ripped off and loopholed to death.
At the core of our justice system is a corrupted sense of right and wrong. He who has the best lawyer gets off. He may be bankrupted, but he gets off! Hundreds who took fiduciary control of investors' money should be in Federal Prisons per the rules of the SEC.
Our government was to give the common man a chance to rise to his highest potential. When certain classes have privileges, we have left our American heritage of all men equal under the law.
The biggest bailouts were under Bush as well as war expenditure. I am disappointed Obama did not see the failure and make Bailout II for the small businessman / average citizen. I regret our deepening of involvement in the Middle East with manpower.
I applaude the attempts at diplomacy not before done. The closing of Guantanamo was wise. We don't begin to know what really went on there in violation of the Geneva Convention.
Truth always rises eventually despite a statute of limitations extension. No matter what the law says, we are one in the eyes of God and will face judgment for our acts of selfishness and hypocracy.
Great post. Bush's biggest victory & democracy's biggest lost.
One must not confuse a loss for the Democrats as a loss for democracy. On the contrary, freeing the first amendment to maximize political speech is the fundamental point of democracy.
It's hard to say, on the one hand, that you stand for freedom of religious speech without being hindered by the government while at the same time expressing regret that the government is now allowing more political speech. Unless, of course, you regret the fact that Democrats have lost some ground in the corporate war.
The largest contributor to (and controller of) political speech in this country are corporations already, namely, media corporations. According to most studies I've seen, these media corporations are populated with reporters and the like who vote Democratic 90% of the time (whose views are represented in story selection and content in favor of Democratic positions).
If you're going to be upset about corporate control over political speech, you'll need to start with the media.
Gene, You have hit the nail on the head in your description of our government. I would add something about unfair tax policies. I don't buy into the Dems mantra against "tax cuts for the wealthy" although I do see that the wealthy certainly get unfair advantages in most areas. Also, I just see the income tax as an immoral venture by the government.
You and I will disagree about Bush on Guantanamo, enemy combatants,and the Supremem Court ruling, etc so lets leave it there.
I am sure the Dean book is interesting...I am just always sceptical. I trust few people in government regardless of political party.
Thanks for your insightful comments.
Tripp, democracy is threatened any time the government can limit political speech. DC argues that case quite well.
I want to commend Scarborough for his credible job on the Constitution in his reply, as his take on other matters, particularly Faulkner, causes me a great deal of concern for misplaced opprobrium.
Tony: Just curious, did you see the Movie W, by Oliver Stone.
Would be fascinated to see your review, blog on that.
For me blame can be laid at the foot of Karl Rove and Richard Land and the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC; as I see this as all of one piece.
With the rest of you will be looking to see how the Baptist Joint Committee weighs in on this SCOTUS decision.
Death, Taxes, and the Great Pumpkin are 3 things we can't escape. What interests me most is that the Income Tax was a temporary measure put in place after WWI to pay off the war debt.
It seems many things, once put into place as temporary measures, take on the weight of law. I think it would be smart to put a statute of limitation on any law outside the 10 Commandments that every 10-20 years it goes off the books.
You should see the thick book of stuff a policeman carries these days trying to stay inside the law while criminals just carry a knife / gun / crowbar to invade my house. That is rediculous.
The more we loose our common sense and start splitting hairs, the more we get crossed with one another and fuss and fight. It is obvious when you can't figure out who killed Kennedy despite 40 years of research and comparison of a totally public event, there are just some things everyone has an opinion on.
That is the mystery of life. The more media we have, the less people really seem to know. I know FOX News has a clear conservative slant. I have my high hopes on the reliability of others, but BBC often gives another slant sans American bravado which gives insight.
That is why we have 4 Gospels and one Lord. One man cannot tell it all and God gave us a mind to think.
By the way, has anyone noted the Harper's Magazine story on murder/suicide at Guantanamo. That little dark secret is getting told and it's not going to help Bush's image one iota, I'm afraid.
Fox--"opprobrium" is a bit too cerebrial for me. How about defining how you use it for it is vague--and I'm not impressed with .25 words.
The opprobrium in question, Gene, is best pursued in a church congregational setting, among a fellowship of baptized believers.
I think we both have a specific congregation in mind to pursue offblog exchanges that have more to do with malice, intent, and mendacity, than the light of good fellowship.
Thus the reference to opprobrium and Faulkner; cause one would have to believe anybody who went around name dropping Faulkner and Altizer and Marney could stand a strong word like opprobrium on occasion.
As to the matter at hand, one frustration for me when it comes to 43 and the Courts is Rice University Humanities department which houses not only Billy Graham biographer Bill Martin, but also the author Chandler Davidson who wrote the book on Criswell, and Texas Politics is now pretty much funded by Bush guru James Baker;
So how can one have hope for virtuous free speech in the US, if it is James Baker, Bush Network mega dollars and influence that now fund key thinkers on analysis of Baptist witness and influence in the nation's life.
In a similar vein it goes deeper to that, to the point in the 60's where Pressler and John Baugh were in the same Sunday School class at 2nd Houston.
The exploration of how the Supreme Court got to this moment has a deep vein in the politics of the SBC of the last 40 years.
I am all for free speech; but I find it hard to understand "whose" free speech this SCOTUS decision supports. The profits of a corporation comes principally from the combination of the capital contribution by MANY investors and the labor of MANY employees. Why should the corporation use that profit the speak? For whom is the corporation speaking?
If it takes a super majority to pass anything in the US Senate, maybe the corporations should be restricted to "speaking" about anything unless 75% or more of the current shareholders and and employees agree with the speech?
This is precisely the problem with unions, particularly teachers' unions, who use union dues to fund political campaigns (generally Democratic ones) on issues that have almost nothing to do with the stated purpose of their union.
Which is why Democrats are so pro union. And why, one would have to surmise, union membership represents such a low percentage of American workers (somewhere in the teens). If unions had any sense about them, they'd stick to those issues directly related to the interests of their members (ie, issues directly related to thier industry, education, etc). Doing so would likely boost their membership more than they could imagine.
Which is also why profit-motivated corporations aren't likely to have similar problems. They are in fact driven by profit (not into wasting money) and the interests of their shareholders (who want to make a profit). Whereas unions can strongarm union dues from people just happy to have a job and attempt to force otherwise happy employees in places like WalMart to unionize, corporations don't have that "luxury."
Rather, the dog-eat-dog business world forces corporations to be far more responsive to their shareholders and customers than unions evidently are to the sea of people unwilling to identify with those unions who fail to represent their political interests, by and large. Just ask the average public school teacher the exent to which they identify (and appreciate funding) the excessively liberal political agenda of the National Education Association (NEA).
Yes, I agree the same problem exists for unions. I think the solution is not to limit both unions and corporations to "speak" in a single voice when in actuality there are "many different" voices behind those organizations. It seems that freedom of speech is a right of a human person. Regardless of SCOTUS convoluted reasoning that these organizations have the right of freedom of speech, the fact remains that they are not human persons and cannot really "speak" with the singularity of mind like a real person can.
The Union speaking for its members is analogous to our SBC leadership speaking for the SBC. It never used to be done in the past and is pretense to me. We are so diverse, no individual or spokesperson could possible imply we are unified without defying Autonomy.
Further, I am concerned about the redaction of Baptist History going on now. The Calvinism proposition is rediculous, in my opinion.
Thanks to Tony for the "heads up" on the Toy / Lottie Moon contentions of Paige Patterson.
I am in touch with a member of the SWBTS faculty who seems to think the materials will be shared with WMU eventually. He has yet to reveal that any theological contentions of Patterson have been affirmed after they have had more than a month to examine whatever is in those crates.
You would think that any concrete evidence would be the top priority as opposed to Patterson's redaction theory that Lottie rejected him for being "too liberal."
Remember: those who write history are usually the winners--who may not be the real majority nor the tellers of truth. I think we have ample evidence of this in the Conservative Resurgence activities since 1979!
At least Smyth & Helwys is publishing several "minority reports."
Post a Comment