I discussed the Supreme Court campaign reform case back in September and you can read it here.
I thought at the time that this was the one issue that could rally all Americans together....but I was wrong and all I can say is "WTF America?"
When a liberatarian blogger whom I respected comes out in favor of the Supreme Court decision then its obvious that Americans no longer THINK but rather react to everything based upon where Obama stands on an issue.
Its obvious that the bogeyman known as "Liberalism" and or "Liberals" has totally dominated our way of thinking to the point where we have quit thinking and just react. We have allowed ourselves to be dumbed down to the point where we have become the human equivalent of Pavlov's dogs.
When college educated human beings, who claim to be all for individual rights and smaller government, who end up giving up their responsibility to think for themselves and are reduced to the intellectual equivalent of a knee jerk reaction everytime they hear 'Obama,' 'liberals,' and or 'liberalism,' then obviously the issues facing this country are beyond our own ability to deal with them.
Corporations are legal entitites which are formed under and by government fiat. The first modern day corporation was not established until 1844 and thus when our Founding Fathers established the concept of Freedom of Speech they did not mean to include corporations because the concept did not exist at the time.
Corporations were formed to protect investors from being liable for the debt of the business entity above and beyond their investment. They are nothing more than legal and or economic entities and it is the government's responsibility to regulate and police them.
If the investors in a company want to influence the political system then they can do so as individuals. If unions want influence politics then they should do so through their members acting as individuals. With the influence of lobbyists, special interest groups, with policies being written by representatives of corporations on K Street, and with the flood of disinformation being unleashed through all the not for profit 'educational' single issue corporations that are established on a daily basis the individual has become irrelevant.
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect and defend our country. We have a military to protect from foreign threats and we have fire and police departments to protect us from internal threats. But who protects us from the threat that greed and irrational self interests that can and does arise from the creation of wealth?
We have seen the effect of corporations and special interests in this country: From deregulating Wall Street, to tightening the personal bankruptcy codes, to turbo charging the mortgage industry by changing how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac work to bailing out Wall Street because they are "Too Big To Fail...."
The impact of these changes has and will severely destabilize this country.
For quite sometime money has controlled the two major political parties, limited the ability of third parties to develop, and influenced the decision making process of our elected officials. Yet Americans want to protest the growth of government without acknowledging that that growth was funded by and benefitial to corporate interests. These same economic interests will not allow government to get smaller nor will these same interests allow government to spend less.
A large portion of these major corporations, those that make up the Standard and Poor's S&P 500, either do not pay taxes and or pay more in foreign taxes than they do in taxes to the United States, are not encumbered by the debt being incurred on their behalf BECAUSE THEY DO NOT PAY TAXES!
Now, the Supreme Court has decided that these same corporations can promote their own candidates for elected office and of course this ruling will benefit the Republicans dramatically.
I did not realize that Conservatives and Libertarians were such 'Corporatists' who were willing to sell their soul to the corporate interests to escape statism: Nothing like jumping from the frying pan into the fire....
You can only wonder what our economy would be like if corporations actually ran their businesses instead of trying to manipulate and control our political system; I wonder how profitable companies would be if they didn't spend so much money on trying to influence and control our poltical system.
Its time we quit quoting the Founding Fathers and Ayn Rand and its time we look to George Orwell for any direction in regards to our future. Conservatives and Libertarians that support this ruling by the Supreme Court fear big government because they fear...WE THE PEOPLE.
The government was the only means we had to balance the economic power of corporations and the conservative, strict constitutionalists just sold us all out!
One of my oldest friends somehow wound up as a John Birch type and a seer of conspiracies I find to be far-fetched. He's been telling me for years that we're headed for a form of corporate feudalism. He warned me not to be taken in by Obama even if he is genuinely well intentioned and intelligent, because the forces at work don't give him a chance to do more than make token attacks on an irresistible force.
ReplyDeleteI'm not laughing any more.
When Clarence Thomas can sit on the Supreme Court and denounce the fact that people who make contributions have to be identified and thus open to threats and attacks and at the same time he denounces secret ballots for unionization to protect employees from threats and personal attacks then corporate feudalism is not a theory but a fact.
ReplyDeleteWhen a simple thinking person such as myself can see the obvious then its not a conspiracy it is a fact and a fact that people refuse to accept.
Simple I may be but stupid I refuse to be.
The anger that was directed at the Republicans in 2008 is now being directed at the Democrats and with the reality that we are now experiencing a double dip recession Americans will become more angry and the political system will be incapable of dealing with the anger....then will come radicalization of the citizenship.
What all the pundits and spin meisters are calling 'socialism' today will look pretty conservative in a few years.
Tao,
ReplyDeleteI agree that if things don't go just right, we may be looking at increasingly unstable and radicalized politics here in the States. I meant to sound fairly positive in a recent comment, but the SCOTUS decision is indeed troubling, and its potential impact is catastrophic if what Matt correctly calls "judicial overreach" isn't countered. Barney Frank made some intelligent remarks on the issue yesterday -- in sum, he says, Congress has some reach because it determines how corporations are looked at via corporate law. The SCOTUS can try to metaphorize us all into a state of neofeudalism, with its paean to corporate personhood, but I think Frank was suggesting Congress can redefine and partially control how the law "identifies" corporations and deals with their activities. It absolutely must do so if we are to avert disaster.
By the way, I think we need a post on Senate Rule 22, the filibuster and cloture -- my comments were overly pessimistic as the 67-vote rule can be overcome by procedural maneuvers such as the so-called nuclear option or even by a simple majority (acc. to some) at the opening of a Senate session. Of couse, there's risk in moving to a simple majority, especially now that we've just been told corps are free to "buy" their own politicians, to the extent that advertising can deliver the necessary seats and votes.
Another good subject for a post would be the growth of "Independent" voter registration. Why do people go that route? There are obvious answers, but also not-so-obvious ones.
The issue of Senate Rule 22 is interesting in light of the fact that I bet (I do not know but I am going to study it) that it is used overwhelmingly by the Republicans and it is used overwhelmingly in regards to legislation that would be considered 'liberal' or benefitting citizens vs. special/corporate interests.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of a filabuster always seems to come up whenever it involves broad issues that effect change civil rights and healthcare)
Didn't see anyone filabuster the laws that deregulated Wall Street...or NAFTA...
The increase in registration as Independent is more obvious...the voter does not believe that either party represents their best interests and since we are a two party system that basically explains the alienation and malcontent amongst the general public.
This decision is one the scariest by far to come out of any government sanctioned entity.
ReplyDeleteThe whole secret society conspiracy theory is no longer a laughing matter.
And now the legislation introduced to try and rein in the internet makes more sense.
With digital TV comes the ability to further control that media and what we see and hear.
Little by little, we are being transformed with hardly a blink or nod.
This is a disaster, although I too saw it coming. The Repuglicans are happy, too dumb to realize that they are goose-stepping into oblivion.
ReplyDeleteOn cloture and filibuster, three places to look:
ReplyDeleteRules of the Senate
Senate Site Essay on Cloture
About.Com explains the basics
On the SCOTUS decision again, a recent "special comment" by Keith Olbermann was accurate for all its over-the-topness: to extrapolate from KO, if things go bad, after a few fretful years something like the peace that passeth understanding would descend over US political culture -- as KO put it, people like Beck and Rush probably don't realize that the decision "slit their throats," too, because they stir citizens up. That's not good if we're talking neo-feudalism. Can't have the peasants getting angry, no? Nope, what we need is perpetual happyfacedness, a sense that all is well. What was it that Dr. Pangloss used to say? "Tous les
événements sont enchaînés dans le meilleur des mondes possibles." Or generally, all is for the best; it's all being taken care of by those who know, etc.
Here's my take on it: corporations are amoral; the model citizen for them is as follows:
1. Somebody who has a specialized skill that benefits the corporation but that doesn't encourage him or her to think beyond the specialized skill. (Even the humanities have become partially "specialized" in this manner.)
2. Somebody who thinks of him or herself as an autonomous individual but whose alleged autonomy consists almost entirely in being preoccupied with the next wondrous new product or service coming down the pipe. Just waiting for the next big consumer-thing, in other words. Mostly tranquil, and then excited only by "the right stuff." And always passive, even when seemingly most active.
3. Somebody whose comprehension of history and current events (except trivial ones) is so thin that it can be easily manipulated and replaced at the will of powerful interests. If the corps want a politician out, they want an electorate ignorant and passive enough to respond to saturation campaigns no matter how absurd the claims made. Nothing personal, really -- it's just business if I say you're a socialist child-molester with proven connections to al Qaeda. Or maybe all the corps need to do is sow a bit of confusion -- do we really know who this representative of ours is? Hmmmmm... we're not sure sure anymore. Don't take it the hard way. But you gotta go.
The tragic thing is, I suppose, that since corporations mostly just want to make money, there's no absolute need for them to become all-controlling monsters. But if you let them, they probably will because there's even more profit in it than when they play fair. One wishes they really were persons at a time like this, since then they could at least pray, "lead us not into temptation."
So many memes and themes, it is hard to know where to begin. Some quick thoughts. There is still one power conferred upon "real persons" that artificial persons do not have: The right to vote. Yes, I am aware how corporate money can influence votes, but corporate America should beware the power of voter backlash. If they overreach, they do so at their peril (and in some ways, the Massachusetts debacle sends this message).
ReplyDeleteWe, the people, also have free speech rights and should avail ourselves of this right at every opportunity ... through our blogs, letters to the editor, civic groups, and the establishment of more progressive think tanks (where conservatives have a 4 to 1 edge over liberals). Consumer boycotts can be a powerful force (money talks especially when it hits the corporate bottom line).
While none of these thoughts go to the heart of the issue, the practical approach is to think defensively for the interim until the systemic problems have been fixed. More thoughts later ...
once I was happy
ReplyDeletenow I am sad
this country is sinking
too fucking bad
corporations are people
how can that be
they are evil institutions
that rape all they see
where is the outrage
we went from bad to worse
an unholy alliance
this corporate curse
it is all ideological
straight down the line
half of these judges
were born with no spine
now thanks to Bush
this court will misbehave
with the end result
consequences most grave
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFear of "big brother" has become an industry supported and maintained by LITTLE BROTHERS to escape justice. It's really that simple.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, this ruling appears to benefit corporations, but that is not quite true. This ruling benefits only certain corporations ... the really big fish, the monopolists. Russell 2000 companies: Beware!
ReplyDeleteIf you are an inventor or an entrepreneur, and you build something worth owning, the monopolists will have you for lunch ... with impunity. With newfound power and influence carried to the extreme, all anti-trust, restraint of trade, and other curbs on predatory practices will come to an end ... and that will be the death of free enterprise, as well as the death of democracy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFree speech, my ass (can I say it here?)
ReplyDeleteThis is simply a terrible decision, with no redeeming value anywhere one looks -- unless one is a big corporation. It is unconscionable, but not surprising, that most (though not all) Repubs are supporting it.
I listen sometimes to transcripts of the SCOTUS deliberations on NPR and always wonder what planet these folks live on. Of course I'm not a lawyer and have little understanding of the intricacies of legal reasoning, but what I usually hear there strikes me as woefully removed from reality as I/we know it. Talk about living in a bubble (and/or having activist judges, because this decision is obviously a job of this character).
Speaking of which: why do we have an uproar over "activist judges" when the judges rule favorably toward social justice, but not when they rule clearly against it?
In the same vein, why do we talk about "class warfare" when the have-nots ask for or demand some minimal social justice, but not when the real class inequities, perpetrated by the ruling class, literally decimate the have-nots?
No need to answer, BTW, those are my usual Sat. morning rhetorical questions.
The real disconnect is the fact that the term conservative is used amongst citizens as a way a person who is for limited government and individual freeom describes themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhile on the Supreme Court a Conservative justice is one who rules in favor of the status quo (big business and or big government) versus the individual and or individual freedom.
Yet citizens who quote the Founding Fathers and Ayn Rand ridicule the "liberal" justices of the Supreme Court all the time....
We are such a country of contradictions and paradoxes...
Elizabeth, like you I also listed to several of the transcripts, and was struck that the fascist five were overreaching. When both Roberts and Alito claimed to prefer a minimalist approach during their confirmation hearings, they perjured themselves. A minimalist approach to this case would have been to decide whether or not the airing of one movie crossed a well established line. But the questions of these (In)Justices (except for the ever-mute Thomas) made it clear to me that they were aching for an excuse to legislate from the bench.
ReplyDeleteMore hypocrisy from the facist four. From the time of Bork, the conservative styled Justice nominees claimed that they would not change estblished law and would accept precedent. I believe the law that was overturned was 63 years old.
ReplyDeleteSo much for the integrity of our judiciary. This does show that advice I was given by a local party big wheel also is adhered to by guys wanting to be on the Supreme Court. "Tell them whatever they want to hear. Then do whatever you want."
"On cloture and filibuster"
ReplyDeleteOn Donner and Blitzen. . .
You said:
ReplyDeleteThe first modern day corporation was not established until 1844 and thus when our Founding Fathers established the concept of Freedom of Speech they did not mean to include corporations because the concept did not exist at the time.
EXACTLY!! That is a very important point that A LOT of people are totally missing.