[corp-focus] Shed a Tear For Our Democracy

[Robert Weissman]

Shed a Tear For Our Democracy
By Robert Weissman
January 22, 2010

Shed a tear for our democracy.

Yesterday, in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court =
ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited =
amounts of money to influence election outcomes.

Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is =
already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals =
and city halls. Now, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that =
they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.

In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from using =
their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporatio=
ns to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are =
sure to accept the invitation.

The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election =
process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their front groups =
attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial corporate =
interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who =
will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance =
the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.

Because the decision is made on First Amendment constitutional grounds, =
the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in the states =
and localities, including in state judicial elections.

In one sense, the decision was a long time in coming. Over the past 30 =
years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the First =
Amendment protections that it has afforded for-profit corporations.

But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from Supreme Court =
tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with speech in the =
political context, the court has long upheld regulations on corporate =
spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United decision is also an =
astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought the issue of corporation=
s' purported right to spend money to influence election outcomes was at =
stake in this case until the Supreme Court so decreed. The case had been =
argued in lower courts, and was originally argued before the Supreme =
Court, on narrow grounds related to application of the McCain-Feingold =
campaign finance law.

The court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment =
rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth. There is surely =
no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the court =
created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be =
justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First =
Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They =
do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are =
uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. =
Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic=
 thrust of the First Amendment.

We, the People cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We, the =
People cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy.

There are some things that can be done to mitigate the damage from today's =
decision.

First, we must have public financing of elections. Public financing will =
give independent candidates a base from which they may be able to compete =
against candidates benefiting from corporate expenditures. We will =
intensify our efforts to win rapid passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, =
which would provide congressional candidates with an alternative to =
corporate-funded campaigns before fundraising for the 2010 election is in =
full swing. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, and Rep. John =
Larson, D-Connecticut, the bill would encourage unlimited small-dollar =
donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in =
exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions in =
amounts of more than $100. The proposal has broad support, including more =
than 126 co-sponsors in the House.

In the wake of the court's decision, it is also essential that the =
presidential public financing system be made viable again. Cities and =
states will also need to enact public financing of elections.

Congress must ensure that corporate CEOs do not use corporate funds for =
political purposes, against the wishes of shareholders, with legislation =
requiring an absolute majority of shares to be voted in favor, before any =
corporate political expenditure is permitted. There are other legislative =
approaches to limit today's damage, including a range of measures proposed =
by Representative Alan Grayson, D-Florida.

These mitigating measures will not be enough to offset today's decision, =
however. The decision itself must be overturned.

We need a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations =
are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the =
press. A constitutional amendment is not a thing to throw around lightly. =
But today's decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so =
severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a =
constitutional corrective is demanded.

Winning a constitutional amendment will be a long-term effort. The =
starting point is for the people to petition their government to demand =
action. Public Citizen with allies has launched such a petition effort. =
Got to <www.dontgetrolled.org> to sign the petition.

The Supreme Court has lost its way. Democracy is rule of the people -- =
real, live humans, not artificial entity corporations. Now it's time for =
the people to reassert their rights.


Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen, <www.citizen.org>.

(c) Robert Weissman

This article is posted at:  <http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focu=
s/2010/000329.html>.