US Supreme Court Decision “Citizens United"
A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about the State of Vermont in which I recalled a conversation I had with my father when I was a little boy. We were talking about his impressions of the people who lived in the states within driving distance of us in Philadelphia, and he came out with this pearl: “If you’re not from Vermont, they don’t really want you in Vermont.”
I laughed when I heard it, and it’s certainly not true as a general statement, but I’ve come to see the point he was trying to make. Vermonters tend to be self-styled, much like the French, I suppose one could say; they don’t ask permission to be fiercely independent on the issues that concern them.
Thus it’s no surprise that Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who runs (of course) as an Independent, bravely leads the way on huge pieces of legislation, like health care, and my favorite, a constitutional amendment that would overturn the US Supreme Court decision “Citizens United.” Since this judgement in early 2010, corporations are protected by US Constitution’s First Amendment that grants live people the right of free speech. Now, corporations can spend as much money as they like to influence our elections according to their profit-making interests. Where you and I are free to spend $2500, Chevron can spend $13 billion (its cash reserve). Until this decision is put asunder, we Americans live in a democracy in an extremely limited sense of the word.
Here’s Sanders’ recent speech, an excerpt from which reads:
In my view, a corporation is not a person. In my view, a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants without disclosure on a political campaign. In my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries, spend millions and millions of dollars, on a campaign, in order to buy elections. I do not believe that that is what American democracy is supposed to be about. I do not believe that that is what the bravest of the brave, from our country, fighting for democracy, fought and died to preserve.
In my view, Sanders has nailed it.
I urge you to support this legislation. More at MoveToAmend.org.
Sanders is, of course, not an independent. He is, IN FACT, a self-described socialist. With that in mind, there is no “moral high ground” he can claim to hold when the issue is whether corporations can spend their own money to support candidates or parties.
The most utterly absurd hypocracy in this entire silliness is the fact that unions have always enjoyed the right to spend their members’ dues in any way the union bosses want. If it’s okay for a group of individuals to form a political action committee, or an entire group of party members to vote as a bloc without disclosure, (while we still have secret ballots, which may “go away” soon as “Card Check” looms), why should a corporation (including the mom & pop store) have to put a “warning label” on everything they say, print, broadcast and do? The opposition to Citizens United comes NOT from the faux “moral outrage” feigned by the Green Mountain socialist and his friends, but rather from a leftist opposition to capitalism in general. Their hatred is focused on companies, which are institutions that have been the victims of marx, lenin, engels, stalin, mao, castro and Sanders for generations.
I would say you left a few key pieces out of your analysis.
Unions are in existence to lobby for the betterment of the lives of their membership. We can debate all day about whether they are effective or required in this day and age with government regulations but watching the corporations doing everything they can to neuter the government makes me think that they might have their place again.
Corporations are in the business of reducing the amount that workers are paid for the betterment of the bottom line so as to enrich the investors and the company officers.
Unions tend to endorse candidates and their endorsements are sought after and thus you know where they are spending their money. Also, ads for particular political candidates that are sponsored by unions tend to state that fact at the end of the ad so everyone can know who the union is endorsing.
I don’t recall seeing political candidates touting the endorsements of any corporations nor do I recall seeing political ads where a corporation states it’s sponsorship of the candidate. Why is that? Why do they want to hide this fact? Why won’t the Koch brothers run ads where they simply state that they are endorsing a particular candidate because that candidate will disband the EPA making it possible for them to cease spending money on pollution control equipment so they can improve their bottom line and pollute the environment we all have to live in as much as they want? Why do they form a “superPAC” to hide behind?
I am still of the belief that if corporations are people then we should be able to “execute” them the same as people or do the business equivalent of “putting them in jail” for a number of years where they must shutdown completely until their sentence is served and they are released to do business again. The employees would have to move to a new company, most likely the competition, which would have to grow and expand to fill the void in services left by the executed or jailed company.
I don’t see where card check is involved in this at all. It is a way to decide if a union will be formed and has nothing to do with the political process at all.
The opposition to Citizens United comes from people who recognize that the government is the only means to protect the population from corporations who’s only concern is the bottom line and how to reduce costs to improve the bottom line. Protecting the population is one of the government’s roles. If corporations were responsible and didn’t do things like Love Canal there would be no reason for an EPA and our government would be that much smaller but we all know how that plays out. If airline industries would behave responsibly, maintain their planes correctly, monitor the skies for traffic control at airports on their own so there would not be midair crashes and not leave people stranded on the tarmac for hours on end, we would not need an FAA and the government would be that much smaller. Corporations will abuse everyone and everything for the sake of their bottom line. Very few are different from this. The left doesn’t hate capitalism. The left hates corporations that work for all they are worth to have their way with the entire universe to enhance their bottom line even while knowing they are hurting the workers, the people and the environment. If they were to behave responsibly, pay their workers fairly, clean up after themselves we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Instead their motto is “externalize the costs and internalize the profits”. They really don’t care who they hurt in pursuit of a bigger bottom line. Companies are definitely NOT the victims you try to portray them as.
Argh I posted the version above that I did NOT spellcheck. Can I get that removed and replaced?
Please send me the update copy and I swap it out for you.
Ha ha. Not spell checked but still vaild points, Brian.