The Supreme Court Of The United States today reversed decades of precedent, deciding that corporate spending on political advertising cannot be regulated. They apparently decided this on the grounds that corporations are legally treated as persons that have first amendment rights, the first amendment guarantees free speech, and a corporation’s spending money on election ads is equivalent to a citizen’s expressing his or her political opinion. One could certainly take issue with the purported equivalence, but a more serious problem, it seems to me, is that corporations are legally bound to make the generation of profits for their stockholders their controlling priority; corporate leaders are legally forbidden from being guided by what they consider to be in the best interest of any other group (including the general citizenry of the United States or of the world).
The 2004 documentary “The Corporation” examines the history of this institution, and argues that if corporations are persons under the law, they are (by legal mandate) sociopathic persons, albeit very rich and powerful ones. The documentary illustrates this conclusion by focusing on the economic crises of the day (e.g., Enron, Worldcom, etc.). Of course, these corporate-driven crises pale in comparison to those of the 2008 meltdown, but the principles of corporate greed remain the same. If the documentary’s argument is cogent, then given that elections are often decided by small margins of voters who can be swayed by distorted election advertising, and corporations are now free to spend huge amounts of money on such advertising, it appears that many of our elections from now on will be decided by sociopaths.
I was surprised to discover that “The Corporation” can now be watched on YouTube in its entirety. Here’s the first part-
This documentary is itself a polished piece of propaganda, of course. Might such agitprop distributed through the internet help to mitigate the effects corporate spending on political advertising? Let’s hope so.
UPDATE- Here’s another option: to amend the constitution…
the legal argument (that giving money to a candidate is the equivalent of free speech, so if you can’t limit free speech, you can’t limit giving money) is specious at best. The court has recognized time, place and manner restrictions on free speech as constitutional for a long time (ie, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre)….Also, does that mean some people have more free speech than other people simply because they have more money. . .But, if you have radical zealots on the court, this is what you get.
I couldn’t agree more, Jim. But if I’m not mistaken (and I might well be), the court hasn’t overthrown the provisions concerning corporations or unions giving money directly to candidates; what they’ve overthrown are the provisions limiting issues-oriented advertising within 30 or 60 days of an election…
Actually, after a little reflection, I realize I was being too kind to call them radical zealots—
You mean you wouldn’t want to raise them to the level of, say, the young Bill Ayers?
Well, zealots generally believe they’re doing God’s work, no matter how twisted their thinking. These guys seem to be employed by other more worldly masters. It’s a huge powergrab for the corporations.
Good point.