John McCain says no, and I absolutely agree. In a press conference with Russ Feingold, McCain said:
“The one thing I know is that if the court overturns long-standing demands — long before McCain/Feingold as it’s called, the ban on corporate and union campaign contributions, I think you will see an era of corruption.”That's an understatement. Massive amounts of money give massive political power and that turns democracy's somewhat level playing field into a cliff. As voters, we can't mount trillion dollar ad campaigns, produce movies, buy networks. As voters in a system where money does all the talking we might as well not vote. In fact, we're already in a position where this will be decided without our vote and thanks to the consistent appointment of ultra right wing judges over the past decades, it will be decided by long gone administrations whose policies are no longer in vogue.
Can we look forward to the Toyota administration? The Cigna Presidency? ( I almost said the Halliburton Administration, but arguably, we've already had that.) What's to stop it, since there are corporate entities, foreign and domestic, big enough to put anyone in office. It's a situation far more frightening than losing the health care reform battle.
The case was argued TODAY. From what I've heard it sounds like it is going to be a 5-4 decision that will overturn Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and the court's own ruling on the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold".
ReplyDeleteAntonin Scalia writing in his dissent, described the McCain-Feingold ruling as "a sad day for freedom of speech". Adding, "who could have imagined the court would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: The right to criticize the government".
This is only true if you believe in corporate personhood and that money is free speech -- two concepts I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would find abhorrent. From a right leaning court one might expect a conservtive ruling -- instead it looks like we'll be getting a corporatist/fascist ruling.
"a corporatist/fascist ruling."
ReplyDeleteNo real surprise since that's what the people who call themselves conservatives are really about.
What exactly is free speech? Does it mean unbridled access to the airwaves ... to blast anything anytime, all the time, at 2,000 decibels? Is the right to free speech conferred only upon the privileged who have money to buy air time, dominate a debate, and prevent others from having equal access? Why should a “corporate person” have more rights and privileges than a real person?
ReplyDeleteSometimes the cause of free speech is better served by leveling the playing field. Campaign finance reform, restrictions on media ownership, and the fairness doctrine allow more voices to be heard. When there is more diversity, competition, and open access, how is the right to free speech abridged?
Conservative members of the SCOTUS have an unseemly religious faith in the infallibility of unregulated markets, unregulated media, everything that favors privilege and wealth. What they fail to realize: the largest corporations have resources to influence media and overwhelm the political process. For the rest of us, the electoral process will become irrelevant as corporations assert unquestioned dominance.
I agree with McCain too and am a strong supporter of getting money out of politics. It's strangling our Democracy.
ReplyDeleteMcCain criticized Chief Justice John Roberts today believe it or not for standing against the reform!! I sent McCain an email thanking him for standing up.
I said while I didn't vote for him that I support his efforts on campaign finance reform.