The Corporate States of America

January 26th, 2010 · 3 Comments

Well, it has been about a week since the United State Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that corporate entities have “personhood” in that they can utilize the first amendment to spend in campaigns. Essentially, the floodgates have been opened, and both corporations and unions will get to drown out the smaller individual contributors with millions of dollars in political campaigns. Now, if you thought that your congressional members and senators were bought and paid for already, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Essentially, the little guys (individual voters) will now be drowned out by “corporate persons.”

There are many things wrong with this decision on so many levels, and people on the right, left, and center are voicing their concern. Even Senator John McCain, who has been an advocate of campaign finance reform, said this, “I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions. However, it appears that key aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), including the ban on soft money contributions, remain intact.”

Another issue with the “corporate personhood” is that it seems that foreign companies will get in on our political act. How is it that American citizens who participate in our elections will now have to compete with oodles of foreign money? We are already deeply indebted to China. A blogger at Unbossed writes, “Congress should prohibit any corporation from engaging in this new political spending if it has any non-American shareholders or owners.” And I completely agree with this one.

Anyway, there will be massive efforts to minimize the impact of this decision that cuts to the core of our democracy, but VivirLatino had a pretty good video explaining why this latest ruling is so damaging. I encourage you to watch it, and please share your thoughts.

Tags: community organizing and activism · Government Accountability · John McCain · Presidential Elections · Supreme Court

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Pensativo // Jan 26, 2010 at 10:34 am

    How about a law that mandates to be a United States Senator or Congressman you can not have dual citizenship with any other Country. Isn’t it much more treasonous or at least suspect when an elected official has an allegiance to a country other than America if they hold dual citizenship?

    And by the way largest demographic group of dual nationals is not with Mexico.

  • 2 Some reactions to President Obama’s State of Union Address // Jan 28, 2010 at 9:53 am

    […] liked that he addressed last week’s Supreme Court decision, especially stating that elections should not be controlled by corporations or foreign entities. […]

  • 3 What the ... // Jan 30, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    I agree with Pensativo, we our more susceptible to damage as a nation from those of dual citizenship, which convolutes the ability of our government to oversight their true convictions of allegiance to our country. But I also believe that we are more sussceptible to damage from those countries that border us simply because it is easy; but placed into perspective US dual citizenship is a world wide issue because it is allowed.
    Campaign contributions in the millions should be outlawed. Leaders should be chosen simply by the content of their character, their abilities and non alliance to powers of corruption. Our forefathers of this country, such as Thomas Jefferson, knew of the potential corruption of large political alliances or parties. This would be a certain formula for disaster. Their intentions for government was to be made up of true representatives of the community or the people, just like you and me, no frills, who could represent their constituents without bias…

Leave a Comment