The U.S. Supreme Court may still retain some familiarity with the
Constitution when it comes to deciding the nuances of cases involving
immigration policy and lifetime incarceration. But when it comes to
handing off control of American democracy to corporations, the court
continue to reject the intents of the founders and more than a century
of case law to assure that CEOs are in charge.
The
US Supreme Court, writes Nichols, has clearly chosen sides as it makes
corporate domination of elections easier and easier while at the same
time placing further restrictions on how labor unions can spend.
Make no mistake, this is not a "free speech" or "freedom of
association" stance by the court's Republican majority. That majority is
narrowing the range of debate. It is picking winners. To turn a phrase
from the old union song, this court majority has decided which side it
is on.
The same court that in January, 2010, ruled with the
Citizens United decision that corporations can spend freely in federal elections -- enjoying the same avenues of expression as human beings --
on
Monday ruled that states no longer have the ability to guard against
what historically has been seen as political corruption and the buying
of elections.
The court's 5-4 decision in the Montana case of
American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock
significantly expands the scope and reach of the Citizens United ruling
by striking down state limits on corporate spending in state and local
elections. "The question presented in this case is whether the holding
of
Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
Translation: If Exxon Mobil wants to spend $10 million to support a
favored candidate in a state legislative or city council race that might
decide whether the corporation is regulated, or whether it gets new
drilling rights, it can. But why stop at $10 million? If it costs $100
million to shout down the opposition, the court says that is fine. If if
costs $1 billion, that's fine, too.
And what of the opposition. Can groups that represent the public interest push back?
Can labor unions take a stand in favor of taxing corporations like Exxon Mobil?
If it costs $100 million to shout down the opposition, the court says that is fine. If if costs $1 billion, that's fine, too.
Not with the same freedom or flexibility that they had from the 1930s until this year. Last Thursday,
the court erected elaborate new barriers to participation in elections by public-sector unions
-- requiring that they get affirmative approval from members before
making special dues assessments to fund campaigns countering
corporations.
How might it work? If Wal-Mart wanted to support candidates who
promised to eliminate all taxes for Wal-Mart, the corporation could
spend unlimited amounts of money. It would not need to gain stockholder
approval. It can just go for it.
But if AFSCME wants to counter Wal-Mart argument, saying that
eliminating taxes on out-of-state retailers will save consumers very
little but will ultimate undermine funding for schools and public
services, the union will have to go through the laborious process of
gaining permission from tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands
of members. And, even then, it will face additional reporting and
structural barriers imposed by the court.
Campaign finance reformers had held out some hope that states might
be able to apply some restrictions on corporate spending, as Montana did
with its one-hundred year old law barring direct corporate
contributions to political parties and candidates. That law, developed
to control against the outright buying of elections by "copper kings"
and "robber barons," was repeatedly upheld. Until now.
Now, says
Marc Elias, one of the nation's top experts in election law,“To
the extent that there was any doubt from the original Citizens United
decision broadly applies to state and local laws, that doubt is now
gone,” said Marc Elias, a Democratic campaign lawyer. “To whatever
extent that door was open a crack, that door is now closed.”
There may still be a few legislative avenues left for countering the
"money power" of the new "copper kings" and "robber barons." But they
are rapidly being closed off by a partisan high court majority.
That's why
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders,
the Vermont independent who has emerged as a leading proponent of moves
to amend the U.S. Constitution to restore the rule of law in elections,
says: “The U.S. Supreme Court’s absurd 5-4 ruling two years ago in
Citizens United was a major blow to American democratic traditions.
Sadly, despite all of the evidence that Americans see every day, the
court continues to believe that its decision makes sense."
When billionaires can "spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy
this election for candidates who support the super-wealthy," argues
Sanders, "this is not democracy. This is plutocracy. And that is why we
must overturn Citizens United if we are serious about maintaining the
foundations of American democracy.
Sanders says
he will step up his efforts to enact a constitutional amendment to
overturn not just the Citizens United ruling but the democratically
disastrous rulings that extend from it.
“In his famous speech at Gettysburg during the Civil War, Abraham
Lincoln talked about America as a country ‘of the people, by the people
and for the people.’ Today, as a result of the Supreme Court’s refusal
to reconsider its decision in Citizens United, we are rapidly moving
toward a nation of the super-rich, by the super-rich and for the
super-rich," explains Sanders. "That is not what America is supposed to
be about. This Supreme Court decision must be overturned.”
No comments:
Post a Comment