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
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
221 comments Add your comment
jewcowboy
January 26th, 2010
6:06 pm
Damn that press for keeping us informed.
Dave R.
January 26th, 2010
6:08 pm
Actually, jefferson, those of us who do know it all are just bothered by those of you who think you know it all and by those of you who want to know it all but don’t have the capacity.
AmVet
January 26th, 2010
6:09 pm
Shades of Watergate in Louisiana?
Really?
Really, really?
I don’t care what your political persuasion is or what meaningless adjective you use to describe yourself, the fact is, Republicans are a lot of things.
But often times, quick learners ain’t one!
BTW is it just me? Or does something seem, very different, and pleasant here this afternoon?
(I knew my original prediction of a week for the over/under was much too “liberal”!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khSIYmTzt6U&NR=1
What a shame Dave.
You were actually making some really good progress at being civil there for awhile.
Looks like now that the albatross has “flown” away, you’re ready to take up the mantle.
Tick, tick, tick…(reprised.)
jewcowboy
January 26th, 2010
6:10 pm
Dave R.,
But…well, of course, the Democrats would…they are all liberals who ahte free speech. But…freedom of speech loving Republicans would never ever even think of such a thing.
TGT
January 26th, 2010
6:10 pm
McCain-Feingold “did not so much protect the electoral process from the corrupting influence of money as it protected politicians from the effects of political speech that they did not like.”
md
January 26th, 2010
6:16 pm
Damn that press for keeping us deformed.
Fixed it for you.
You actually believe they should have the sole corporate voice to speak their slanted tongue?
TGT
January 26th, 2010
6:19 pm
McCain-Feingold “did not eliminate the influence of money on politics, but it did play favorites as to which sort of speech may or may not be legal.”
“Implicit in its briefs but laid bare at oral argument, the government maintained that the Constitution allows the government to ban distribution of books over Amazon’s Kindle; to prohibit a union from hiring a writer to author a book titled, ‘Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda’; and to prohibit Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a book containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office. As David Barry would say, ‘I am not making this up.’
The Court said ‘no,’ and the only shocking thing about the decision is that the four liberal justices said ‘yes.’
Hopefully, this ruling marks an end to 20 years of jurisprudence in which the Court has provided less protection to core political speech than it has to Internet pornography, the transmission of stolen information, flag burning, commercial advertising, topless dancing, and burning a cross outside an African-American church.”
Dave R.
January 26th, 2010
6:25 pm
Dinner awaits. Maybe I’ll be back if nothing interesting is on the TV.
Supreme Court turns us all into citizens of Whoville | Jay Bookman - The best HOT news! Blogs, Videos, News. - BEST News!
January 26th, 2010
6:25 pm
[...] Visit link: Supreme Court turns us all into citizens of Whoville | Jay Bookman [...]
TGT
January 26th, 2010
6:30 pm
The government lawyer defending (McCain-Feingold) was asked: If movies financed by corporations may be banned because they express opinions on candidates, how about books?
“It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘So vote for X,’ the government could ban that?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Replied the Justice Department attorney, “Well, if it says ‘vote for X,’ it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act provision.”
If the corporation wanted to publish such a book, he continued, “we could prohibit the publication of the book using corporate treasury funds.” We could prohibit the publication of the book.
If corporate advocacy may be forbidden as it was under the law in question, it’s not just Exxon Mobil and Citigroup that are rendered mute. Nonprofit corporations set up merely to advance goals shared by citizens, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association, also have to put a sock in it. So much for the First Amendment goal of fostering debate about public policy.
It is often argued that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But it’s a longstanding constitutional axiom that the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits — say, barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing.
Once you grant the government that sort of power, it is bound to expand. Newspapers could be forbidden to make endorsements. Right now, media companies are exempt from the ban. But why should a newspaper be free to spend money urging voters to support a candidate, while other companies are not?
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
6:32 pm
Well, there’s boiled pox and there’s fried pox and there’s pox and grits and pox gumbo and…
Kamchak
January 26th, 2010
6:33 pm
Well, there’s boiled pox and there’s fried pox and there’s pox and grits and pox gumbo and…
…for breakfast there’s pox and bagels.
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
6:38 pm
Drotleff’s three-year service in the Marines ended with an other-than-honorable discharge in 2001 and a military record that included offenses for seven unauthorized absences, two failures to obey an order, assault, disrespect toward a noncommissioned officer and falsely altering a military ID card. Before his service with Blackwater in Afghanistan, the 29-year-old also faced a number of state convictions for reckless driving, disturbing the peace, assault and battery, resisting arrest and DWI.
Uh huh. Geez. I mean, Xe, we only hire good folks.
AmVet
January 26th, 2010
6:38 pm
And pox, bagels and spam…
Spam, pox, bagels and spam…
Spam, spam, spam, spam, pox and spam…
Kamchak
January 26th, 2010
6:44 pm
AmVet
Police Line Do Not Cross
January 26th, 2010
6:55 pm
Del:
Did you ever get out to the “Rockpile/Razorback” or “Ca Lu/Vandergrift” ??
Bokonon
January 26th, 2010
10:10 pm
Now, not even Horton, with his big ears, can hear a who.
Weimar Republican
January 26th, 2010
11:27 pm
Unions are not bad,without my union I wouldn’t have access to health insurance or other benefits.
Not all unions are of the factory worker type,some industries are based on independent contractors
and need the collective representation that a union can provide.
————————————–
No one said ALL UNIONS ARE BAD, so DO NOT SPEAK IN ABSOLUTES.
THE SECIU AND NEA ARE VERY BAD ONES.
Weimar Republican
January 26th, 2010
11:31 pm
THIS WAS SETUP..JUST WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN ANYway, SHOULD WE ALL FEAR GOING INTO A SENATORS OFFICE? I THOUGHT THEY WERE PUBLIC SERVANTS…SURE MARY IS..
————————————————–
Something like “entering a federal property under false pretenses??”
P.J.Kegel
January 26th, 2010
11:44 pm
It’s time for congress to wear Nascar style suits with the dacals of their sponsors [contrbutors]printed boldly. Like Goldman Sachs,AIG,Blue Cross; etc. This way we would have true transparancy.
kimmer
January 27th, 2010
10:24 am
The issue here is not what a person or persons have to say or what the result of that speech is but whether or not they have the right to express that speech. Clearly the constitution affords us that right. Last time I checked a corporation is made up of people and those people have the right to speak freely. It isn’t like they being allowed to put a gun to people’s heads and compel them to vote a certain way.