Going forward, it's legally possible for these "persons" (as corporations long ago gained many of the same legal rights/protections as individuals) to openly spend money in elections - oops, I mean exercise their right of free speech - just like any other "person."
Of course corporations already dominate the political/government landscape - but now they can forgo those pesky rules about PACs, corporate money bundling, and other contributory efforts.
Individual citizens are still face a dollar limit on contributions to any single federal campaign. Corporate "citizens" - probably not.
I guess the "equal-opportunity" of the American system provides a solution: the interested citizens can set up a corporate entities to increase their electoral spending power - oops, I mean amplify their message. That seems simple enough! Then those citizens can successfully compete with messages being sent by their fellow citizens, named Goldman-Sachs, Haliburton, etc.
"Swift boat"-style ads are where corporations may now indulge freely. The overall effect on hearing both sides of an issue in the media - already a massive challenge - will be chilling. Writer/legal consultant Richard Goldberg on the tattered state of regulating money and elections:
As many have noted, this amounts to a significant gutting of our already tepid campaign finance laws, and it will allow corporations like Aetna—if they can find a political issue about which they feel strongly (can anyone think of one?)—to use corporate funds, derived from success in the economic marketplace, to defeat candidates in the political marketplace. That political marketplace, which was once called the "marketplace of ideas," may henceforth be called the "marketplace of whichever corporation can buy the most ads." This money will be spent nearly without regulation.
Journalist Greg Palast weighs in on the Supreme Court ruling. He explores some scenarios and analyzes the potential real-life results of the decision. His assertion that the Obama campaign of 2008 was majority-funded by individual citizen contributions has been proven wrong, but he raises pertinent issues - like the potential that foreign governments/mega-corporations, with a registered U.S. corporate arms (gotta love Joe Biden's Delaware, home of the corps), could spend without restriction on political campaigns.
The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens United case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. (Ted) Olson (arguing in favor of the plaintiff) offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.
Wow, really? It's a bad idea to restrict foreign interests from participating financially in our electoral system?
If that's the case, our system is broken. The two-party system of government "by the people, for the people" has been purchased by business interests - and one of the last see-through curtains shielding us from that reality has been removed.
Corporations are organizations of people - a small minority of our population with a majority of the money. Time for the majority population to figure out how to exercise influence. It won't be through a Democrat or Republican political party, although we can scare them into some action.
It's best to seek another path - let's think seriously about reforming the entire system so it benefits people, not companies, and creates safety and wealth benefits for all - not the minority.
.jpg)
