In the decision, it was stated by Justice Anthony Kennedy that ""when government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought."

I didn't just read this, did I? Imagine, if you will, Corporation A (or Special Interest Z) with big budget, seeking support from Legislator B, "offering" to produce ads etc denouncing Legislator C, in return for "consideration" of their "policy suggestions".

Hold on a second. I respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court decision. Fortunately, my First Amendment rights allow me to do so. Whew. Something about this whole thing just doesn't make sense. A 100-year-old policy - gone - as quickly as it takes to say "Holy Campaign Finance Reform, Batman".

First of all, I completely support the need to enforce the First Amendment. So far, so good. To the Group of Five (Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy) - I am with you on that.

But here's the problem. The decision is based on a false pretense in reasoning. You see, last I looked, corporations have no voting rights. Individuals within corporations have voting rights, but the corporation itself does not. Corporations have had limits on campaign spending - for the express reason that their treasuries cannot directly influence a political campaign. That seems to be fair enough - because (again) corporations don't have voting rights.

Justice Stevens, in his dissent, was compelled to state the obvious: "Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

Thank you for the refreshing moment of clarity. In case you need some more perspective, MoveToAmend.org notes that

"On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule."

And now, we will see the further expansion of the influence of the Bigs (as I call them) - Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Big Insurance. Does the phrase "going from bad to worse" ring a bell? It's not like these special interest groups need any greater political voice. Just take a look at the past 6 months of health care reform - and make it uglier. There you have it.

In the name of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, would someone please wake me up and tell me this isn't happening? Isn't this decision now giving a non-voting block the political "right" to define the policies of our voting republic?

In my humble opinion, I think the issue is misguided from the start. This is not an issue of free speech. Nobody - not one person that is a part of the voting electorate - is being prevented from speaking to any and all issues, with or without limits on campaign contributions. Not one. Yes, every voter should have the right to do these things. But, frankly, the problem isn't the aspect of free speech. That's just the mirage, the smoke screen to get everyone fired up.

This is an issue of elections and representation of the constituents - and conflict of interest. Teddy Roosevelt was right back in 1905 when he stated that "contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." But Roosevelt didn't go far enough. The problem is that there should not be ANY money going to ANY politicians from ANYONE. None. As soon as any money exchanges hands, there is an inherent conflict of interest. And I can guarantee you that that same conflict of interest has a direct influence on the ability of the aforementioned legislator to perform the task that the voters elected him/her to perform in the first place.

What is absolutely hilarious (or depressing, depending on how you spin it) is the irony of ironies inherent to this decision. The government just bailed out a number of corporations who I have no doubt will eventually use their treasuries to influence the political landscape. The bailout took place with tax payer dollars. So now we are looking at the irony of the citizens paying tax dollars to bail out companies that will now have a far greater opportunity to influence political issues as compared to the average tax-paying and voting citizen (due to having a far bigger treasury to support campaign contributions). Wow . did we just get it coming AND going on that one?

Justice Kennedy noted that "the First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." No, free speech simply allows me to verbalize anything and everything, rational or otherwise. Free speech and free thought are not, and have never been, one and the same. Let the people speak freely, and the lawmakers think freely and clearly without the influence of even more special interest dollars. And let those same legislators work to represent their constituents, and their constituents alone - one of the most basic tenets of our Constitution.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

Email Name Website		Title Comment smaller | bigger
		I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage. Write the displayed characters Add Comment