News
Sports
ENLARGE
Electoral viability is a term spoken in the media without definition in true Orwellian fashion. What it refers to is a kind of corporate blessing of a candidate who is running for office. Electorally viable candidates can be assured of strong corporate financial support and corporate media coverage. Their viability is frequently a result of quid pro quo promises and/or proven track-record of doing the bidding of wealthy corporations. These electorally viable candidates may be either Democrats or Republicans in name but are corporate puppets at the core.
Despite the benefits to career politicians, many have sought to reduce this poison pill to democracy. The Tillman Act of 1907 was the first legislation in the United States prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns. This was followed shortly by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. These stood as the nation's primary laws regulating campaign finance in elections until the 1971 passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Together they sought to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations from seeking to control the outcomes of elections.
The corporations were not to be deterred in their quest to dominate elections. They sought to invalidate these long-standing, bipartisan laws by seeking judicial support. The Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, began the process of equating money with speech. This ruling gave those with more money the ability to be heard by more people more often, allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to once again shape the public dialogue.
In 2002, Congress sought to limit this ability by passing the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. The Supreme Court backed corporate speech again over the bipartisan will of Congress with their Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision of 2010. Its narrow 5-4 decision gutted McCain-Feingold and ruled that corporations cannot be limited due to the corporation's First Amendment rights to free speech.
Free speech is an individual right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Those justices deciding the majority in the Citizens United case believe a corporation is a legal person and is thus entitled to those rights. If, however, one believes that a corporation is an organization of several people given legal sanction to conduct business then this argument falls short.
Those arguing for the majority — Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy — frequently cite “original intent,” a conservative theory of jurisprudence. The problem here is that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution ever mention corporations despite their existence at the time of the nation's founding. Following this reasoning, if the Founding Fathers wanted corporations to have the rights of a person, then they would have included it in the text of the founding documents. Perhaps these five justices follow “original intent” only when it suits their agenda.
It is common judicial practice for judges who would benefit from a ruling to recuse themselves from a decision to avoid the appearance or actuality of impropriety. Justice Thomas stood to gain financially from a positive outcome for Citizens United through his wife's political advocacy company, Liberty Central. Justices Thomas and Scalia both participated in political strategy sessions organized by the co-owners of Koch Industries. Had either one of these justices acknowledged his corporate bias, then the McCain-Feingold legislation would have remained standing. Scalia and Thomas ignored the appearance of impropriety and voted to benefit their political and economic biases.
In his dissent from the majority, Justice Stevens wrote “The Court's opinion is 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.” This common sense cuts across political affiliation.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll in February 2010 found that roughly 80 percent of Americans were opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. The poll showed that this opposition was nearly equal across political lines: 85 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Republicans, and 81 percent of unaffiliated oppose corporate personhood. In a toxically partisan political atmosphere, rare is the issue that can bridge the seemingly insurmountable differences between peoples and parties. Opposing “corporate personhood” for the good of democracy is such an issue.
David Cobb, speaking on behalf of Move to Amend (http://movetoamend.org/), will appear in Roseburg on Monday, June 13 at 7 p.m. at the Douglas County Library in Roseburg to promote an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw corporate personhood. This conversation needs people of all political stripes. Let there be no corporate money king-maker despoiling the democracy of “We the People.”
Keith Barger has a bachelor's degree in political science and history from the University of Portland and is an organizer for the Umpqua chapter of the Pacific Green Party. He most recently chaired the committee to update the 2012 Pacific Green Platform. He can be reached at umpqua.greens@gmx.com.
Despite the benefits to career politicians, many have sought to reduce this poison pill to democracy. The Tillman Act of 1907 was the first legislation in the United States prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns. This was followed shortly by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. These stood as the nation's primary laws regulating campaign finance in elections until the 1971 passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Together they sought to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations from seeking to control the outcomes of elections.
The corporations were not to be deterred in their quest to dominate elections. They sought to invalidate these long-standing, bipartisan laws by seeking judicial support. The Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, began the process of equating money with speech. This ruling gave those with more money the ability to be heard by more people more often, allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to once again shape the public dialogue.
In 2002, Congress sought to limit this ability by passing the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. The Supreme Court backed corporate speech again over the bipartisan will of Congress with their Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision of 2010. Its narrow 5-4 decision gutted McCain-Feingold and ruled that corporations cannot be limited due to the corporation's First Amendment rights to free speech.
Free speech is an individual right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Those justices deciding the majority in the Citizens United case believe a corporation is a legal person and is thus entitled to those rights. If, however, one believes that a corporation is an organization of several people given legal sanction to conduct business then this argument falls short.
Those arguing for the majority — Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy — frequently cite “original intent,” a conservative theory of jurisprudence. The problem here is that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution ever mention corporations despite their existence at the time of the nation's founding. Following this reasoning, if the Founding Fathers wanted corporations to have the rights of a person, then they would have included it in the text of the founding documents. Perhaps these five justices follow “original intent” only when it suits their agenda.
It is common judicial practice for judges who would benefit from a ruling to recuse themselves from a decision to avoid the appearance or actuality of impropriety. Justice Thomas stood to gain financially from a positive outcome for Citizens United through his wife's political advocacy company, Liberty Central. Justices Thomas and Scalia both participated in political strategy sessions organized by the co-owners of Koch Industries. Had either one of these justices acknowledged his corporate bias, then the McCain-Feingold legislation would have remained standing. Scalia and Thomas ignored the appearance of impropriety and voted to benefit their political and economic biases.
In his dissent from the majority, Justice Stevens wrote “The Court's opinion is 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.” This common sense cuts across political affiliation.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll in February 2010 found that roughly 80 percent of Americans were opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. The poll showed that this opposition was nearly equal across political lines: 85 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Republicans, and 81 percent of unaffiliated oppose corporate personhood. In a toxically partisan political atmosphere, rare is the issue that can bridge the seemingly insurmountable differences between peoples and parties. Opposing “corporate personhood” for the good of democracy is such an issue.
David Cobb, speaking on behalf of Move to Amend (http://movetoamend.org/), will appear in Roseburg on Monday, June 13 at 7 p.m. at the Douglas County Library in Roseburg to promote an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw corporate personhood. This conversation needs people of all political stripes. Let there be no corporate money king-maker despoiling the democracy of “We the People.”
Keith Barger has a bachelor's degree in political science and history from the University of Portland and is an organizer for the Umpqua chapter of the Pacific Green Party. He most recently chaired the committee to update the 2012 Pacific Green Platform. He can be reached at umpqua.greens@gmx.com.
