A Democracy of the Corporate, By the Corporate, For the Corporate?
Editor Excelsior
Issue date: 11/23/09 Section: Columns
With the Supreme Court's atrocious January 21, 2010 decision in Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, big businesses and unions now have increased power to sway elections. The 5-to-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United establishes the authority of corporations to dip into their treasuries and finance the campaign of the political 'product' of their choice. The decision means that freedom of speech has become functionally equivalent to expenditure of money.
For those unfamiliar with the case, Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation that funds the American Sovereignty Project, a lobbying group whose main objectives can be found on their website, and include "complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations" and "defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-controlled International Criminal Court." Amongst their other wacky projects, Citizens United is the organization that produced "Hillary: The Movie," which they subsequently attempted to release on television during the 2008 primary season. The Federal Commission blocked the release, stating a violation of the McCain-Feingold Act, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which bans broadcast advertisements that name a federal candidate 30 days prior to a primary, or 60 days before a general election.
The ruling overturned two previous precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the latter of which upheld parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that places restriction on corporate campaign spending. The implications of the Supreme Court's decision are profound, and a bit scary.
One of the most obvious results of this decision will be an outrageous increase in television advertising around elections. With corporations competing for airtime, the public's consent may be manufactured by endless emotional images and sounds, propelling the disillusionment, misinformation, and decreased understanding of critical issues at stake.
For those unfamiliar with the case, Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation that funds the American Sovereignty Project, a lobbying group whose main objectives can be found on their website, and include "complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations" and "defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-controlled International Criminal Court." Amongst their other wacky projects, Citizens United is the organization that produced "Hillary: The Movie," which they subsequently attempted to release on television during the 2008 primary season. The Federal Commission blocked the release, stating a violation of the McCain-Feingold Act, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which bans broadcast advertisements that name a federal candidate 30 days prior to a primary, or 60 days before a general election.
The ruling overturned two previous precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the latter of which upheld parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that places restriction on corporate campaign spending. The implications of the Supreme Court's decision are profound, and a bit scary.
One of the most obvious results of this decision will be an outrageous increase in television advertising around elections. With corporations competing for airtime, the public's consent may be manufactured by endless emotional images and sounds, propelling the disillusionment, misinformation, and decreased understanding of critical issues at stake.
Be the first to comment on this story