(Image: Brennan Center for Justice)
If
corporations are people, as the Supreme Court pretends, they certainly
are loudmouths, constantly telling us how great they are and spreading
their names everywhere.
Amazingly, though, these corporate creatures have suddenly turned
demure, insisting that they don't want to draw any attention to
themselves. That's because, in this case, corporations are not selling,
they're buying — specifically, trying to buy public office for their pet
political candidates by funneling millions of corporate dollars through
such front groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In turn, the fronts
use the money to air nasty attack ads that smear the opponents of the
pro-corporate candidates.
Why do corporations need a middleman? Because the ads are so partisan
and vicious that they would appall and anger millions of customers,
employees and shareholders of the corporation. So, rather than besmirch
their own names, the corporate powers have meekly retreated behind the
skirt of Republican political outfits like the Chamber.
But don't front groups have to report (at least to election
authorities) who's really behind their ads, so voters can make informed
decisions? No. Thanks to the Supreme Court's infamous Citizen United
edict in 2010, such groups can now pour unlimited sums of corporate cash
into elections without ever disclosing the names of their funders. This
"dark money" channel has essentially established secret political
campaigning in America.
[Corporations'] panic over having a little
sunlight shine into their deepest bunker reveals just how destructive
they intend dark money to be for our democracy.
That's why shareholders and other democracy advocates are asking the
Securities and Exchange Commission to rule that the corporate giants it
regulates must reveal to shareholders all political donations their
executives make with corporate funds. After all, the millions of dollars
the executives are using to play politics don't belong to them — it is
shareholder money. And by no means do shareholders march in lockstep on
which political candidates to support or oppose.
Hide and seek can be a fun game for kids, but it's infuriating when
CEOs play it in our elections. Last year, corporate interests sought to
elect their candidates by hiding much of their politicking not only from
company owners but also from voters.
In all, $352 million in "dark money" poured into our 2012 elections,
the bulk of it from corporations that covertly pumped it into secretive
trade associations and such scams as "social welfare charities," run by
the likes of Karl Rove and the Koch brothers.
Since underhanded, anonymous electioneering puts a fatal curse on
democracy, the SEC should at least compel corporate managers to tell
their owners — i.e., the shareholders — how and on whom their money is
being gambled in political races. It's a simple reform, but — oh, lordy —
what a fury it has caused among the political players.
A rare joint letter from the U.S. Chamber, Business Roundtable and
National Association of Manufacturers has been sent to the CEOs of the
200 largest corporations in our country, rallying them to the barricades
in a frenetic lobbying effort to stop this outbreak of honest,
democratic disclosure.
House Republicans are even going to the extreme of trying to make it
illegal for the SEC to let shareholders (and the voting public) know
which campaigns are being backed by cash from which corporations.
Hyperventilating, these powerful scaredy cats claim to be intimidated by
the very suggestion that they tell the people what they're doing in
public elections.
Their panic over having a little sunlight shine into their deepest
bunker reveals just how destructive they intend dark money to be for our
democracy. Ironically, the Supreme Court's chief assumption in allowing
unlimited corporate cash into the democratic process was that
shareholders would be informed and involved, and provide public
accountability for their companies' political spending.
Even Justice Antonin Scalia, long a cheerleader for corporate
politicking, is no fan of hiding it from the electorate: "Requiring
people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic
courage," he has written, adding that a campaign "hidden from public
scrutiny" is anathema to self-governance. He also deems it cowardly:
"This does not resemble the Home of the Brave," he pointedly noted.
© 2013 Creators
National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book,
Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow,
Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on
behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families,
environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.
No comments:
Post a Comment