Supreme Court turns us all into citizens of Whoville
Last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United overturned more than a century of precedent and handed corporations the same free-speech rights as people, including the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates for office.
Among most Republican politicians, that news was greeted with glee. However, the GOP grassroots and the Tea Party movement ought to look at that ruling with a great deal more skepticism, because its impact on the issues that matter most to them could be significant.
Take, for example, earmarks.
In the wake of Citizens United, imagine yourself as a congressman confronted by a fly-by-night company back home trying to get a $200 million earmark for some product the Pentagon refuses to buy. Is that congressman going to be more willing or less willing to say no, knowing that the company can now spend freely in an attempt to unseat him? The power of special interests to armtwist Congress for earmarks can’t help but grow significantly as a result of this ruling.
Or how about those Wall Street bigwigs, manipulating Washington at the expense of Main Street and small business?
When big banks want to gut regulations and get the Security and Exchange Commission off their backs, or when they need another big bailout from the taxpayer, what kind of reception will they now get from congressional committees? Wall Street’s already strong grip on Washington will turn into a death grip now that Congress knows those banks can spend millions of dollars trying to defeat or re-elect them.
Moving jobs overseas?
Much of America’s manufacturing base has already been shipped overseas thanks to trade deals that were championed by corporations eager to tap cheap overseas labor. With corporate America now able to threaten or woo candidates directly, is that process likely to slow or accelerate?
Illegal immigration?
Some jobs, like homebuilding, meatpacking and the service industry, can’t easily be shipped overseas to cut labor costs. So the obvious solution is to move that cheap labor here. When the economy improves and employers once again need workers, how diligent will the federal government be about prosecuting companies for hiring illegal immigrants? We already know that workplace enforcement all but ceased in the Bush administration, mainly to please companies that wanted the cheap, docile workforce that illegal immigration provides. Thanks to Citizens United, those companies now have a much larger voice to ensure they get their way. (See, Saxby Chambliss.)
Government waste and the deficit?
When the next farm bill comes up, just to cite an example, will the farm-state politicians who dominate the agriculture committees say no to agribusiness demands for billions in new taxpayer subsidies? The same is true of industries from automaking to Big Pharma to defense. (See. Saxby Chambliss).
Overall, the biggest complaint of the populist tide is that government has grown unresponsive to the needs of the little guy. Is that problem likely to ease or worsen now that corporations have been freed to “speak loudly” by making unlimited campaign expenditures? Citizens United has given special interests a veritable megaphone to “communicate” with national leadership, while in comparison individual citizens are condemned to living in Whoville, where “even though you can’t see or hear them at all, a person’s a person, no matter how small.’’
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
221 comments Add your comment
LA
January 26th, 2010
2:06 pm
Enter your comments here
LA
January 26th, 2010
2:07 pm
First!
LA
January 26th, 2010
2:09 pm
Then by your counts, Jay, Dick Cheney is the Grinch.
Granny Godzilla
January 26th, 2010
2:11 pm
I understand this DOES leave the door open for loads of foreign money in America’s elections. If China doesn’t already own us they surely will now.
Infreakingcredibly bad.
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
2:12 pm
And the next time a big business goes and blows up its workers or poisons the masses in order to make a little bigger profit for their executives and owners, who will come running to your side. Well, Dang! That’s easy. See Saxby. We’ve already established what he is and on top of that, he works for peanuts, sugar-coated, that is.
Granny Godzilla
January 26th, 2010
2:12 pm
Dare I?
Dick Cheney is the grinch…..LOL LOL LOL
Mick
January 26th, 2010
2:13 pm
** Dick Cheney is the Grinch.**
Works for me.
stands for decibels
January 26th, 2010
2:15 pm
But Jay! Free speech! And stuff!
Jenifer
January 26th, 2010
2:15 pm
Saxbone is a dud.
LA
January 26th, 2010
2:16 pm
“Infreakingcredibly bad.”
Yep, that describes Mrs. Gadzilla to a T.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
2:16 pm
No GG…this ruling just allows US Business to compete with China regarding bribery for politicians. More detail available at the National Institute on Bribery and Politics.
Dave R.
January 26th, 2010
2:17 pm
That any one of you spaghetti-spined liberals could be persuaded to vote for anyone on the basis of a political ad is beyond me.
Do your homework, stand up for what you believe in and vote with your heads, not your hearts.
Now that they playing field has been leveled, and media corporations no longer have the monopoly on this issue, it opens it up for all. I thought you libs were all about equality?
jewcowboy
January 26th, 2010
2:18 pm
The upside of this is the tremendous amount of money that is going to be poured into adverting. All those camera guys, directors, actors/actresses, film editors, muzacins will now be able to afford their Starbucks again, which means the baristas can afford their car payments again, which means GMAC /Aly Bank) will be in the black after the next election cycle.
Looks like it might be time to buy some BBDO, McCann Erickson, Ogilvy and Mather, etc. stock.
Matilda
January 26th, 2010
2:19 pm
With regard to national politics, our voices have been rendered completely irrelevant. We only thought election years were annoying before! Thank goodness for DVRs, pay cable, and On Demand, without which, television will become completely unwatchable for the non-stop, corporate-funded political advertising.
If you want to make a difference in your world, stop looking to D.C and get involved with your community. Local zoning, funding, and other decisions most of us know nothing about actually affect the quality of life in our neighborhoods. The corporate-owned kissazzes in Washington don’t care about our communities. They only care whether we’ll be maniuplated into reelecting them to serve their corporate sponsors.
stands for decibels
January 26th, 2010
2:19 pm
The upside of this is the tremendous amount of money that is going to be poured into adverting.
And commercial TeeVee survives a few more years beyond its useful life, one presumes.
Mick
January 26th, 2010
2:20 pm
**Damn them to that place that liberals don’t believe exists!**
Stereotyping – not valid.
Granny Godzilla
January 26th, 2010
2:20 pm
Turdly Outhouse
clever way of putting it perhaps, but letting Putin pick your next
senator ok with you?
jewcowboy
January 26th, 2010
2:21 pm
Dave R.,
“That any one of you spaghetti-spined liberals could be persuaded to vote for anyone on the basis of a political ad is beyond me.”
You mean like the “Daisy” ad Johnson used to great effect in defeating Goldwater in 1964?
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
2:22 pm
Cheney is not much different from Armey. They’re both, well, you know, goofy goobers. And grinches.
Jay
January 26th, 2010
2:24 pm
LA is on semi-permanent vacation.
And for the record, the nj who launched a personal attack at LA earlier today is NOT the NJ (caps) who posts here regularly. (That post has now been pulled.)
Lord Help Us
January 26th, 2010
2:25 pm
‘LA is on semi-permanent vacation’ – metaphorically speaking?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 26th, 2010
2:26 pm
Well, I see they’ve went after one of my favorites, Nancy Grace. The poor thing is being sued by the kin of the woman that kilt herself after Miss Nancy went after her on TV. And for the first time in her life she don’t want to be on TV. She’s almost begging a court not to let them videotape her when the lawyers start asking her questions. I’m kind of let down about it all. This brave woman sees everybody she talks to as guilty and when we finally get a chance to see if she’s guilty, she don’t want to let us take it. You just can’t hardly tell about people sometimes.
Anyhow, this SC ruling ain’t no problem. What we need to do, is change the country’s name to the United Corporations of America. And I don’t know about the rest of you, but I plan to take my cap off and kind of bow a little every time I walk by a corporation office.
From now on, you’ll learn things about canadates you didn’t even want to know. These corporations will be putting on 30-minute ads so nasty that if your own mother was running for office you’d vote against her.
At least we know that the taxes on corporations will be low for the next 50 or 100 years. These people in Congress can’t afford to raise them now.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Rick Santelli
January 26th, 2010
2:27 pm
Maybe now businesses can exercise their inalienable rights to make the government run more like a business!!!
That’s a good thing. Way to go SCOTUS in looking out for America.
SOUTHERN ATL
January 26th, 2010
2:27 pm
Elections will be a hard uphill battle….but the American people will be focused and ready for whatever is thrown their way even if it means boycotting some of these companies! Let the “Battle” begin!!!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
January 26th, 2010
2:28 pm
Oh, quit your whining-
including the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates for office.
We don’t have that “right,” I think the cap is $2,400 or something like that.
Better start being nice to big business, hahahahaha
Kamchak
January 26th, 2010
2:29 pm
It’s a sweet fantasy. But the reality is that corporations will be buying so much more television time when it matters — in the run-up to key elections — that the voices of working Americans will drowned out with the same regularity that they are on Capitol Hill — where, it should be noted, overwhelming Democratic majorities have yet to deliver on even the most basic demands of the labor movement.
To think otherwise is to neglect the reality that one corporation — Goldman Sachs — spends more annually to pay just its top employees than the combined assets of all the nation’s major unions.
University of Wisconsin communications professor Lew Friedland points out that the nation’s four largest banks would have to allocate a mere one-tenth of one percent of their assets–$6 billion–to counter a campaign in which the whole of the U.S. labor movement spent all of its assets.
The bottom line is that a union leader who supports the Citizens United ruling is like a steer who talks up a steak restaurant because they’re both in the same business.
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
2:29 pm
Granny Godzilla
January 26th, 2010
2:20 pm
LOL…I guess what I meant to say is instead of these companies etc giving the money to china, with explicit instructions, and the money making its way back to the USA, Corp America can cut out the chinese and make direct delivery where it is needed most… : )
Jenifer
January 26th, 2010
2:30 pm
Jay, I knew that wasn’t NJ.
stands for decibels
January 26th, 2010
2:32 pm
Maybe now businesses can exercise their inalienable rights to make the government run more like a business!!!
There are a whole lotta business models out there. Were you thinking of this one, perhaps?
Mick
January 26th, 2010
2:33 pm
This Supreme Court is more about ideology than the people, when will it end?
Normal
January 26th, 2010
2:34 pm
The one saving grace of this whole thing was, I thought, that unions could spend as much and counter balance the corporations, but after reading this, I’m not convinced anymore…
Some union leaders think that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC — which essentially takes the limits off campaign spending — will give them the same flexibility and freedom to influence the process as it does corporations.
These are the same union leaders who imagined that electing Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress would lead to the rapid enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act and meaningful labor-law reform.
The AFL-CIO actually filed a brief in the Citizens United case that urged removal of reasonable restraints on campaign spending.
Indeed, an attorney who prepared the amicus brief for the AFL-CIO recently participated in a conference call talking up the merits of the corporate position, along with representatives of the conservative Heritage Foundation and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.
What are the leaders of the labor federation thinking?
They imagine that, with spending limits removed, organized labor will be able to buy enough television time to reward their political friends and punish their political enemies.
It’s a sweet fantasy. But the reality is that corporations will be buying so much more television time when it matters — in the run-up to key elections — that the voices of working Americans will drowned out with the same regularity that they are on Capitol Hill — where, it should be noted, overwhelming Democratic majorities have yet to deliver on even the most basic demands of the labor movement.
To think otherwise is to neglect the reality that one corporation — Goldman Sachs — spends more annually to pay just its top employees than the combined assets of all the nation’s major unions.
University of Wisconsin communications professor Lew Friedland points out that the nation’s four largest banks would have to allocate a mere one-tenth of one percent of their assets–$6 billion–to counter a campaign in which the whole of the U.S. labor movement spent all of its assets.
The bottom line is that a union leader who supports the Citizens United ruling is like a steer who talks up a steak restaurant because they’re both in the same business.
Organized labor ought to be siding clearly and unequivocally with the forces of democracy in the struggle to establish a political process in which all voices can be heard, and in which elections are about ideas and issues rather than fund raising and attacks ads.
A few unions “get it.”
The California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, the nation’s largest nurses union, have accurately identified the Citizens United decision as a “disastrous ruling for American workers and American democracy.”
“The healthcare debate of the last year has provided a sobering reminder of the already pervasive influence of giant pharmaceutical and insurance corporations. The last thing our democracy and political system needs is even more spending and political sway by the wealthiest interests in this country,” says Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, the 150,000-member labor organization.
The notion that the Citizens United ruling might somehow make it easier for organized labor to influence the political process is “ludicrous,” says DeMoro.
“Equating what unions and working people could spend on campaigns would be like comparing a toy boat to an aircraft carrier,” she explains. “Corporate influence peddling in politics already distorts and prevents our democracy and political system (from functioning).”
“Opening the floodgates to unlimited spending is a dangerous prescription for candidates who will be even more beholden to the biggest corporate spenders,” argues DeMoro. “The likely result would be more dominance of healthcare policy by insurance and drug giants and less public oversight of our air, water, food, and workplaces that is needed to protect consumers and workers.”
That is the message that all of organized labor should be delivering.
—————————–
I think we are going to need our unions more now. Strikes and more strikes until this thing is repealed.
jewcowboy
January 26th, 2010
2:35 pm
“Maybe now businesses can exercise their inalienable rights to make the government run more like a business”
Since, of course, that is why we have government. So how does that work…your house is on fire and you negotiate a price with the fire department on a price to put it out?
“ok let’s see…3 bedrooms, 2 baths..$1000″
But I can only afford $500
“Hmm..looks like the kitchen just went up….$1500″
I really only have $500…do you offer credit?”
“Sure…73.9% APR…oppps the garage is going…$1750, plus another $250 if you want Fido out before he’s doggie-que”
Kamchak
January 26th, 2010
2:36 pm
LA is on semi-permanent vacation.
…and there was much rejoicing.
Ridgerunner
January 26th, 2010
2:37 pm
There are a whole list of Supreme Court rulings I want to change. Let’s start with a Constitutional Convention !
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
2:37 pm
Normal
January 26th, 2010
2:34 pm
Yes…the unions are having a “jumping up and down” fit about this ruling.
jewcowboy
January 26th, 2010
2:38 pm
“This Supreme Court is more about ideology than the people, when will it end?”
Damnable activist judges
Normal
January 26th, 2010
2:39 pm
LA wore out his welcome?
Dave R.
January 26th, 2010
2:39 pm
Normal, this was a decision by the Supremes, not a legislative act. Strikes, if any that materialize, will not matter in the least.
Bosch
January 26th, 2010
2:42 pm
Jay,
Tell Luckovich nice cartoon for me if you see him in the hallway.
I think he did a nice summation of this.
Bosch
January 26th, 2010
2:44 pm
“LA is on semi-permanent vacation.”
Thank God, my scroll finger was getting all arthritic and stuff.
Kamchak
January 26th, 2010
2:47 pm
Hey Bosch
Pretty boy gets a straight red
Hillbilly Deluxe
January 26th, 2010
2:47 pm
If a corporation has the same rights as an individual, why doesn’t a sole proprietorship have the same protection from liabilities as a limited liability corporation (LLC)?
Granny Godzilla
January 26th, 2010
2:47 pm
Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4432.IH:
and
Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4431.IH:
Kamchak
January 26th, 2010
2:48 pm
Enter your comments here
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
2:48 pm
What did LA go and do this time.
stands for decibels
January 26th, 2010
2:48 pm
Thank God, my scroll finger was getting all arthritic and stuff.
Rather like swimming through untreated sewage, wasn’t it?
Kamchak
January 26th, 2010
2:48 pm
:Oops:
Normal
January 26th, 2010
2:50 pm
Dave R.
Strikes, rallys, riots, whatever, but the CONGRESS can be made to see that we the people do not like it, and they can fix it. That is what I mean…
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
2:51 pm
I like Grayson. I wish he was running for Georgia Governor. I’d vote for him.
Matilda
January 26th, 2010
2:52 pm
I think this ruling will also nullify any attempts at ethics reform on pretty much any level of government. (Ga Gold Dome ethics discussions happening over on the Political Insider page.) Sure, legislators might have to stop accepting expensive dinners, golf trips, etc. from Georgia Power and other special interest reps (IF they actually enact meaningful ethics reform, which is doubtful), but the promise inherent in an unlimited advertising budget is worth more than any “gift” they might use. And since the A-OK comes from the Supremes, it really is over for regular folks having the ear of those who allegedly represent us.