The U.S. Supreme Court Killed Democracy Today
January 21st, 2010
In a 5-4 opinion just released today, the Supreme Court killed American Democracy.
Democracy (aged 221 years and clearly frail and fragile) had no comment on its deathbed.
Democracy’s new spokesperson, the Corporation, gave a statement to its Corporate Press:
“Don’t worry. Democracy is resting peacefully. We’re in charge now.”
Democracy’s next of kin, the American People, also had no comment.
The Corporate Media, under new regulations dictated by Our Glorious Overlord Exxon, declined to comment on the duct tape stuffed in the American People’s mouth.”
Here’s the upshot of today’s Supreme Court ruling:
Corporations are people too.
Well, not really people.
Superior people, with far greater rights than you and me.
After all, they can break the law and steal billions without ever going to jail.
Even better, for the corporations at least, less than one-twentieth of Exxon profits has power to influence a Presidential campaign far more than the billions of dollars spent by every single American on every single Presidential candidate (in the primary and general elections) that ran in 2008.
So stay home, America. Don’t participate in the political process.
The corporations have it covered and will tell you who to vote for.
All thanks to that same great Supreme Court that gave Bush the Presidency,
even though more Americans (and more Floridians) voted for Gore.
Good-bye, Democracy. We’ll miss you.
It’s so hard to say goodbye after 200 years.
You weren’t perfect to be sure, but I, for one, will mourn your passing.
But look on the bright side:
One single CEO will have more power than 300 million Americans.
So if you can get to be that CEO, you can be dictator, not only over the USA, but over the entire world!
And do so without firing a single bullet (at least not at first).
Ain’t the Supreme Court wonderful?
A special 3-hour show tonight, as Mark guest-hosts for Leslie Marshall
Sadly, this is no joke.
The Supreme Court’s decision that corporations have more constitutional rights than mere humans was determined by a one-judge margin. Justice Scalia, and four of his buddies, unilaterally determined that corporations have express constitutional rights in excess of human’s constitutional rights, even though the word “corporation” is not found anywhere in the Constitution on the grounds that the Civil War — which some call the “War to Free the Slaves” was actually the “War to Free Corporations from Human Bondage” and that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, passed as a consequence of that war and giving all American “persons” equal rights under the law was actually designed to allow corporations to own and control Members of Congress. Scalia had ZERO evidence for his decision, but, of course, he didn’t need any. After choosing the President in 2000, despite the fact that the American People and the Electoral College rejected Scalia’s candidate, Scalia knew that, with four colleagues, he could unilaterally take over dictatorship of the USA. And so he has.)
Read these excerpts from the opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens, in his angry dissent to the Citizens United case, backed up by three justices:
- “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.”
- “[F]ive Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”
- “[F]ive Justices today destroy a longstanding American practice.”
- “[This decision] threaten[s] to short circuit the democratic process by preventing laws embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution. These concerns are heightened when judges overrule settled doctrine upon which the legislature has relied. The Court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.”
- “The problem goes still deeper, for the Court does all of this on the basis of pure speculation.”
- “By reinstating a claim that Citizens United abandoned, the Court gives it a perverse litigating advantage over its adversary, which was deprived of the opportunity to gather and present information necessary to its rebuttal.
- “[The Court] leaps from this unfounded prediction to the unfounded conclusion that such complexity counsels the abandonment of all normal restraint.”
- “[There is no] significant justification, beyond the preferences of five Justices, for overturning settled doctrine.”
- “The majority has no empirical evidence with which to substantiate the claim”
- “State legislatures have relied on their authority to regulate corporate electioneering . . . for more than a century. The Federal Congress has relied on this authority for a comparable stretch of time, . . . The total record it compiled was 100,000 pages long. Pulling out the rug beneath Congress after affirming the constitutionality . . . shows great disrespect for a coequal branch.”
- “The Court’s ruling thus dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent—vis-à-vis the role of political parties—and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who will hold public office.”
- “[T]he majority’s characterization of the FEC is deeply disconcerting.”
- “Congress and half the state legislatures have concluded, over many decades, that their core functions of administering elections and passing legislation cannot operate effectively without some narrow restrictions on corporate electioneering paid for by general treasury funds.”
- If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “‘enhance the relative voice’” of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., nonhumans). . . . Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”
- “[T]here is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone [of the Framers] believed [the First Amendment] would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form. To the extent that the Framers’ views are discernible and relevant to the disposition of this case, they would appear to cut strongly against the majority’s position.”
- “This case sheds a revelatory light on the assumption of some that an impartial judge’s application of an originalist methodology is likely to yield more determinate answers, or to play a more decisive role in the decisional process, than his or her views about sound policy.”
- [I]t pays to remember that nothing in our constitutional history dictates today’s outcome. To the contrary, this history helps illuminate just how extraordinarily dissonant the decision is.”
- [In] 1907, when Congress passed the Tillman Act, banning all corporate contributions to candidates[, t]he Senate Report on the legislation observed that ‘[t]he evils of the use of [corporate] money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials.’ . . . President Roosevelt, in his 1905 annual message to Congress, declared: ‘All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders’ money for such purpose.’”
- “We have repeatedly sustained legislation aimed at ‘the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.’”
- “[I]n a functioning democracy the public must have faith that its representatives owe their positions to the people, not to the corporations with the deepest pockets.”
- “[The majority] disregards our constitutional history and the fundamental demands of a democratic society.”
- “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”
- “Starting today, corporations with large war chests to deploy on electioneering may find democratically elected bodies becoming much more attuned to their interests.”
- “It is an interesting question “who” is even speaking when a business corporation places an advertisement that endorses or attacks a particular candidate. Presumably it is not the customers or employees, who typically have no say in such matters. It cannot realistically be said to be the shareholders, who tend to be far removed from the day-to-day decisions of the firm and whose political preferences may be opaque to management. Perhaps the officers or directors of the corporation have the best claim to be the ones speaking, except their fiduciary duties generally prohibit them from using corporate funds for personal ends. Some individuals associated with the corporation must make the decision to place the ad, but the idea that these individuals are thereby fostering their self expression or cultivating their critical faculties is fanciful. It is entirely possible that the corporation’s electoral message will conflict with their personal convictions. Take away the ability to use general treasury funds for some of those ads, and no one’s autonomy, dignity, or political equality has been impinged upon in the least.”
- “When citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy.”
- “[Today's decision] may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process. Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.”
- “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.
And, lastly (Congratulations, if you’ve read this far!), a few quotes from our Founders:
From Thomas Jefferson: “I hope we shall . . . crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country”.
From Chief Justice John Marshall in a decision from 1819: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it”
And so, by one a one-vote margin, five men killed democracy today.
May democracy rest in peace.
Filed under Radio | 
January 21st, 2010 at 10:23 pm
As I said on air, even Matt Drudge conceded that Gore won the votes of the majority in Florida, if ALL the votes had been counted, which of course they weren’t.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/specialreports/EFG/20011111_1825.htm
That’s what the report found. Other ANY system of counting, Gore wins, as long as you count all the votes.
Of course, if you count only SOME of the votes, Bush would have won. Then again, if you only count SOME of the votes, Nader would have won too!
Dave from Pennsylvania, I dare you to prove me wrong and even offered you $1000 if you could. I’ve read the media consortium report. Have you? Obviously not.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:01 pm
If you enjoyed tonight’s show — or any show — please add your name to my mailing list. Just click on “Email” on the homepage, and write subscribe.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:35 am
You know Mark,
Not long ago I noted alarmingly on your blog over the SCOTUS hearing this so called free speech case. I viewed it as Corporate personhood. This would mean legalized bribery, at the least.
Sure the SCOTUS allowed Unions to be included. Knnowingly that unions have been decimated since Reagan. Down to 7% of labor today.
Are you ready for the corporate party? You want a job in this town has now escalated you want to work in this country?
Corporations can out spend by far what unions can organize. We just bailed out Wall Street and now they own our Gov’t. This will destroy our economy. Say good bye to Social Security, Over turn FMLA no problem.
I will make a prediction that Americans will soon become corporate slave with absolutely no voice in their Gov’t. Talk about an authoritarian Gov’t?
Didn’t Italy do something like this? Was it Mussolini of Italy that coined its name?
Mark I really think this is very very bad direction and will rip this country to pieces.
Exon/mobil will hire Blackwater as its security providr with its tanks and jets to protect it against Americans and their voting habits, if their money can’t bribe over or pay off for special recounts by those they pay to recount.
Corporations will have those voting machines back in full force that our vote can be controlled easir and more cost effective.
They will buy their legislators to rid America of unions. We seen how some legislators together with religion influenced Ugandan civil rights legislation.
America will have no controll over its economics what so ever. It will be coprorate board room politicians that now knows what is best for Americans.
Sure Corporations have owned many politicians as it stood prior the SCOTUS decision today.
But Mark, I remember you told me that the SCOTUS would most likely just “tinker” and loosen some laws around the edges.
Corporations will now be ABOVE the LAW. Think about it?
I caught Keith Olbermans special comment on this subject. I have to tell you. I think he was sugar coating it. Remember the corporate whip sawing they called it that companies would pit one plant against another of its plants? Purposely reducing production causing layoffs when contracts would be coming up for negotiations.
It is hard enough in court up against big corporations as it is and now, forget it.
Their is absolutely NO way or No one that could stop a Multi-National corporation that isn’t even American rule in American Gov’t.
What corporations learned in China with Chinese Gov’t that does not govern by any Constitution.
This was done with a 5-4 decision?
This is a ovrturning of established law for over one hundred years at the least.
There will be no more small businesses because big fish eat little fish and everything else it needs to consume.
How could the SCITUS, especially Chief Justice Roberts allow this on a 5-4 split?
Shouldn’t something like this be unanomous? I know, I know it doesn’t work that way.
But it greives me to no end that many I speak with talk about liberal judges legislating from the bench. I have asked them how our SCOTUS could have 5-4 decisions if they are all Suprmemes? Seems like our justices interpret the Constitution (read between the lines) as they need to at any givin case may require their leanings of ideological judgement.
Seems like our SCOTUS is like a bible study with 4 Jews and 5 Catholics and majority in nubers rule. Not the law or grounds of reason in stability of the country.
Because this decision in my perspective is democracy ending.
It is a move to Fascism to say the least.
They openly control the media and what we are told. China imposes limittions on much of their information even on Google. We have less limitations but do have them. You only need listen to the BBC, Canadian news etc to find that Americans have muc news withheld from Americans from american corporate media.
They already control the Fed reserve and our currency for the most. Banks get zero interest money from us (the Gov’t) and charge us to us that money in borrowed terms.
Mark,
you tell me? Paronoid or panic attack?
How long before America does as China and relies on prisons to harvest organs for corporate people of interest. And if they have no matching organ(s). They have our records in the hospitals.
This really freaks me out. This is too much power for a board of director that has a number one purpose of profit and controlling power interests. Notice their is no human factors or governing constitution that binds them into acknowledging say a civil Rights or Humnane behavior.
Should I go buy guns and weapons grade anthrax, join the Monkhood in Tibet or become a Stepford employee?
Can you talk me down? I might be ready to jump.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 am
PS,
Sorry about he speling errors in the above comment. Obviously I am upset.
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 am
I think it has to be corrected immediately or it could be very dangerous. Obama and the Democrats need to say that this is a national emergency caused by five lawless judges and pass legislation to address the emergency. (Do I think they’ll do this? Sadly, not a chance.)
But they may pass the legislation. Here are some I would consider: 1) Most radical — an immediate revocation of any corporate charter for any corporation that spends on political speech. (Corporations are a legal fiction created by the state. If they don’t play nice, the state can take their existence away.)
2) More likely - public financing of any candidate facing a corporate funded opponent to equalize the playing field. Corporations have lots of money but governments can print money. Taxpayers will hate it but what else can you do?
3) Another option is to make each shareholder explicitly approve each political ad OR (and this is the wonderful kicker) get a dividend check back for the amount of the cost of the political ad. 99% of shareholders will want the money, not the ad. And if 1% of shareholders want the ad, that’s fine with me: that’s like the corporate PACs already in existence. As I said on air today, I have no problem with voluntary assocations of people who band together for political reasons to promote an idea. This is, I think, the best strategy. But the vote has to go out to ALL shareholders, which means if there’s a beneficial interest in a mutual fund in an employee’s 401K, the corporation has to find out how to get that particular shareholder’s approval. Republicans will scream, “But that takes away the separation of ownership and control! It won’t allow the CEOs to play at wil with shareholder’s money!” And of course that’s exactly the point. Sorry, Scalia, corporations are not “voluntary associations.” And Scalia, you know it. Stop pretending you’re that stupid.
4) Least radical but still somewhat worthwhile — a proposal to make CEOs appear in any ads sponsored by corporations saying, “I’m chairman of Exxon and Exxon paid for this ad.”
Perhaps the most radical proposal, which I really like because it fits with the logic of Scalia’s belief that corporations are “just voluntary associations” is that the Government(!) spend double whatever the corporations do to support Democrats. After all, the Government is just a “voluntary association.” A shareholder can sell shares of the corporation. And Americans can voluntarily emigrate to a foreign country. Or they can vote in new leadership. But in the meantime, if dissenting shareholders can’t complain about their money buying politicians, why should dissenting citizens have a say?
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Does this mean that Exxon (or any corporation) could hire people to run for local and federal office? Are we looking at a future with “My distinguished colleague from Exxon”?
January 24th, 2010 at 4:18 am
It is over. American representative democracy died on January 21, 2010.
January 24th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
After listening to the podcast, I do not think the “fixes” you mention above Mark will repair or control the damage.
For one reason.
Right now republicans seem to stand to gain the most from corporate dollars. That will change very rapidly once corporations get in gear. First they will back their beloved republican party and them the Board of Directors and the CEO’s instead of retiring will become their (proven) corporate interest in Gov’t. Wal Mart’s dynasty will bear children that will require jobs and important positions that would suit the royal family wealth. Oligarchy vs corporatism?
Like I said, Republicans will see their end soon after the Dems. The Muli-International corporations will allow Toyota to have their say in American politicas. As well as Exxon/Mobil, Haliburton. Defense contractor needing wars to get funding to the enviroment being plundered to sup0port Corporation’s life blood of profits.
As if Americans aren’t drowned out by the corporate media as FOX et al. FOX as a corporation will not really be as needed once the republicans are no longer necessary as copropations present their “corporatist party” candidate. Voting machines have already been proven “reliable” to the conservative cause in the election counting.
You see the electronic machine are cost effective even if you think they are not secure nor accurate and cutting costs enhances profits.
Think of all the Gov’t subsidies that are in place and active right now. All the companies that enternalize the profits and externalize the costs. Our taxes will be wounderful.
If we are lucky, we might be able to shop at the company store and live in the companies housing. If they pay us enough they can raise the rent on us to get it back.
And talk about a palin’s death panal that will be coming.
It will be pathetic to hear the media turn to Sarah Palin to ask her take on this SCOTUS decision.
January 24th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
For Congress to act on such a free speech issue that the SCOTUS unleashed toward Facism. They will need republican votes and republicans will not do anything simply because they believe they have the most to gain right now.
Their survival will be short lived as will the Democratic party as we know it.
Corporations could not own all the congressmen all the time. They can now.
January 24th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
If people thought that they were being gouged at the pumps a while back. Wait till Exxon/Moble raises prices at the pump to afford their political stances, interests and candidates because they will not use their normal profits.
This will be the corporate standard to fund election influence.
There won’t be anyone to stand against it and there won’t be any Gov’t to stop it.
Externalize expenses and internalize profits.
Like I said, Congress nor the White House can do nothing about this that will curtail its omni take over. Dems will need republican votes and that hasn’t happened yet. Don’t foresee it occuring either. So nothing you suggest Mark will be able to come to pass and restrict this.
Republican judicail legislating from the bench is worse than liberal judical activism as this will prove out to be.
The Libertarians that think this is good will come to realize their existance under the corporate rule has NO say or future bearing. Theri are libertarian ideological premises that the corporatist and Fascist state will devour.
Multi-International corporations will rid themselves of these libertarians as well. They are a threat because of the freedoms they espouse that does not promote the corporate interests of say, Venezeulia’s own Hugo Chaves’s nations oil interests. And yes they would have their influence to peddle in America since their gas stations market their oil here.
It gets uglier and scumier as it is given more consideration.
January 25th, 2010 at 2:47 am
Here is a question :
Pat Robertson’s religious organization has a Corporation called the 700 Club.
It is a Corporation and therefore breaks the church and state barrier in religious tests for President. Not to mention the Lords money running ads and buying their candidates.
Gov’t can’t take any corporate rights away from the 700 Club because it is a religion and Gov’t shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting there of.
This decision just keeps sounding worse the more I think of it.
How did money ever get ruled as free speech?
Money is a promise of value that when put together can total the equivelant worth of property value of another.
So money is basically commerce?
So if money is commerce,
Commerce is material goods or services.
Weapons grade Anthrax is a commodity. Can we give weapons grade anthrax to a political candidate under free speech.
After all the anthrax would cost you money and money is free speech.
Extreme argument but is the principal really untrue?