Social Question

Ron_C's avatar

Has the U.S. become an official corporately owned country?

Asked by Ron_C (14485points) January 23rd, 2010

This weeks big Supreme Court decision was that Corporations have the same rights as individuals and that limits on campaign finance by corporations is as illegal as restricting individual rights. This decision eliminates 60 years worth of laws designed to curb corporate influence on Congress and elections. It also opens up the money gate for any group that chooses to incorporate. For instance Al Qaeda could form a corporation and dump billions of dollars to get anti-christian candidates elected and it would be perfectly legal. Of course there is other corporate mischief that would expand on the already blatant control that they have over congress. Is democracy now completely dead in the U.S.?

We already thought that we had the best government that money could buy, now it is official.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

61 Answers

marinelife's avatar

It was a depressing setback. However, it is not the end of the road on control of corporate influence over American politics.

Ron_C's avatar

@Marina I don’t see how it can be fought. The president spoke out against it but the corporations have and control the resources. I really believe that the activist court has sold our our country. This is the worst treason since Benedict Arnold.

Owl's avatar

Maybe so, but I’m not informed enough on the subject to debate the politics. All I can say is, I choose to own stock in this corporation and am awfully glad not to be invested in some of its overseas competitors.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

I think that the Supreme Court has made an unfortunate mistake on this ruling. A blatantly partisan political ruling. Even if Congress were to pass a law stating that corporate entities are not “persons” under the First Amendment, it might not work. Very few Congressmen and Senators would vote to cut off the payola.

Even without direct candidate support, corporate interests are able to sway public opinion by way of slick professional advertising campaigns, usually appealing to fear.

At this point, nothing short of 100% public financing of campaigns and restricting corporate advertising only to the products they market is likely to work. Even then, there are “end runs” around everything. This is a sad time for American politics.

Harp's avatar

The implications of this are enormous. Enormous. Leaving aside the whole ridiculous business of corporations being considered not only “legal persons” from a financial liability standpoint, but persons endowed with the full range of protections under the Bill of Rights, we live in an era where enough money can purchase public opinion. We’d all like to believe that we’re “independent thinkers” rationally formulating our opinions based on the facts at hand, but that’s no longer the case in our society. The machinery of influence is too finely tuned, and time and again has proven its ability to shape the collective thought. Its power is at the service of whomever can pay the price.

This business of allowing these corporate “persons” to have their say is a disingenuous attempt to make it look as though “their say” is just another little voice in the body politic. But it isn’t. It’s capable of coopting all the other voices.

laureth's avatar

Olbermann had some good points to make (watch part two as well). Breathless as usual, but I don’t think the Faux News crowd realizes what their activist Republican judges just did to them.

janbb's avatar

I got nuttin’ to say but “It sucks.”

dpworkin's avatar

It has been for a very long time. Even Roosevelt couldn’t get national health care passed; why do you suppose that was? This will just lubricate the gears a little bit more for our Corporate Overlords, but an elite has been governing this country despite the will of the people since before the beginning of WWII. What do you think Eisenhower was warning us against when he gave his “military-industrial complex” speech?

dpworkin's avatar

@janbb: Good Morning, Good Morning, Good Morning, Goo!

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

Good point @pdworkin . Even T.R. had a major battle vs. the “Robber Barons”.

life_after_2012's avatar

omg!!!!!!!!!!! what i would like to know now is how do we fight back? and how long will it take to get results? thats fucking scary as hell man. we could see a al qaeda corp. in the next couple weeks, i should have probably waited till i was off work to read this qeustion cause now im a little depressed..

Dr_Dredd's avatar

How come it’s only “judicial activism” when it’s a decision conservatives or Republicans don’t like?

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

@Dr_Dredd It cuts both ways now that there is a solid right-leaning majority on the court. O’Connner and Souter were swing votes.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

They both picked bad times to retire…

Bagardbilla's avatar

@life after 2012
how do we fight back, you ask?
Same as always!
1. Educate yourself from multiple POV’s
2. VOTE!
3. don’t spend a single dime with corporations! Bank at creditunions, spend your $$$ with small business owners, buy your food locally…
THAT’S HOW YOU FUCK EM BACK!!!

dpworkin's avatar

@Bagardbilla The part about voting is just wishful thinking. Everyone you vote for is owned by some corporation or other. You may know which one, that’s about all.

filmfann's avatar

Not Officially.

laureth's avatar

@Dr_Dredd – Lefties don’t like this one either.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

@pdworkin You should vote, even a blank ballot, third party or write “none of the above”. Otherwise it’s just chalked up to voter apathy.

dpworkin's avatar

I voted for Obama, for hope and for change. Look what we got instead.

laureth's avatar

Well, it is change(it’s more bald-faced than it was.)

Zuma's avatar

I agree with @Harp above, the average American is so ignorant about economics (among other things) that he or she cannot even tell how they are being screwed by various policies being enacted, much less organize in ways that effectively defend them.

The following is my response to this week’s Supreme Court decision granting corporations the right to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns:

This decision removes the final impediment to corporations competing directly against natural citizens in the democratic process. Up until now, corporations have not been able to contribute to political campaigns directly. They have had to channel their contributions through industry trade associations, Chamber of Commerce-type interest groups, and Political Action Committees. Forcing corporations to aggregate their money in this way is supposed to blunt the influence of specific corporations, so that no one corporation can use its wealth to buy political influence that gives it a permanent advantage over its competitors.

Now the gloves are off and the race for dominance has begun. One can expect the most rapacious and self-serving corporations to end up on top. So, forget global warming; forget health care; forget debt relief; forget peace; forget government by the people. And say hello to the Corporate State—a nation run by its corporations for the benefit of its corporations and not its people. Say hello to policies driven by the military-industrial-complex and for-profit prisons. Say goodbye to democracy and hello to fascism.

The reason that corporations were not granted full political rights in the first place is because they do not die like natural persons. And because they do not die, there is no natural limit to how rich they can become. Over time the laws of compound interest alone will ensure that corporations own everything. The reason they don’t already is because of the countervailing power of government to break up trusts, monopolies, police unfair, corrupt, and dangerous practices, and generally redistribute wealth through things like the minimum wage, protecting the right to unionized, direct forms of social investment, and stimulus spending.

As corporate power has grown, the power of natural citizens has decreased. Corporations have gotten the usury laws repealed, and they can now legally charge you upward of 30% interest. Despite recent cosmetic “reforms” corporations can still engage in stealth pricing—that is, they can trick and trap you into complicated contracts that slam you with penalties on top of penalties, if you run into hard times and fall behind. The steady erosion of the social safety net, lack of enforcement of labor laws, the manipulation of the economy through pumping up and then bursting speculative bubbles, allows corporations to fleece ordinary citizens on a wholesale basis—and to do so legally—or if not legally, to do so with impunity.

As you may have noticed, just one senator—Joe Lieberman, the Senator from Aetna—was able to veto health care for millions of Americans, at a cost of 47,000 uninsured American lives per year. The Iraq war was instigated by oil corporations who had expected to profit handsomely by forcing the Iraqi’s to sell them their oil fields cheap. When that didn’t work out, they profited from artificially high oil priced due to the war-induced uncertainty over oil supplies. Eventually, they were able to gouge the American consumer to the tune of $4 a gallon, knocking over the first recessionary domino that sent the whole world economy to the brink of collapse. To save the day, the Bush Administration gave the banks $350 billion with no strings attached, and now nobody knows where that money went and the bankers are paying themselves billions of dollars in bonuses again.

Once the corporate state begins to rewrite the nations laws to suit itself, you can expect to see a permanent corporate aristocracy emerge, lording themselves over an increasingly debt-ridden and impoverished citizenry. Freedoms will evaporate as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer, because free markets only benefit people who have money. The corporate aristocracy will literally be able to get away with murder, while everyone else will sink into a kind of second-class citizenship subject to the close scrutiny of all the surveillance that money can buy. The technical infrastructure is already in place, and now has a political constituency of its own (everyone who makes a living, directly and indirectly, through the Homeland Security apparatus).

It may already be too late. However, the justices who voted for this are mostly the same ones who voted to steal the 2000 election for George W. Bush. There are ample grounds for impeachment here, but there is no political will.

If you thought my reference to fascism was simply rhetorical hyperbole, think again. An anti-democratic, militarized, corporate state is the very essence of fascism. The tea bag rallies are astroturfed, which is to say, they are corporate funded mass spectacles orchestrated to drum up popular resentment and discontent—in this case, they are tapping into white people’s resentment over having a black president, and the prospect of having to share the nation’s wealth with people they don’t consider real Americans. It is not an accident that the rhetoric is becoming increasingly irrational and violent.

Fascism does not begin with goose-stepping stormtroopers. They come later. First, the legitimacy of democratic government has to be systematically discredited. The whole conservative notion that government is theft and can’t do anything right is part of this propaganda attack. And, then there are the actual attacks when the Republicans rule and bring government into disrepute by staffing it with third-rate people, ideological hacks, and people hostile to the mission of the agencies they work for. During the Bush Administration one watchdog agency phoned in complaints that children were working in meat packing plants during school hours, and none of them were even investigated.

Even science is undermined in order to thwart the development of expertise and competence that might legitimate a technocratic approach to governing. The Republican’s refusal to engage in any sort of bipartisanship is a deliberate attempt to destroy the American people’s confidence in their democratic institutions, by bringing the nation’s business to a screeching halt. In addition, they have engendered cynicism by exposing to the extent to which the Democrats are complicit in all this by being recipients of corporate money and deferential to corporate interests, while pretending to be “for the people.”

———————————————o 0 0 0 o———————————————

Under Obama, we have returned to the ways of soft power abroad, but we have done nothing to dismantle the imperial presidency at home. All the laws that enabled President Bush to declare someone without habeas corpus remain on the books. Unless and until we hold people to account for instituting torture and dismantling the constitutional checks and balances, we are only one or two elections away from a virtual monarchy. We are still very much an imperial power, out for ourselves and our corporations.

This came out just hours after Obama challenged the power of banking corporations and Wall Street. He may have no choice now but to side with the American people to rein this monster in. If he does not, he may not win reelection.

Barny Frank on the Rachel Maddow show was saying that it may be possible to use Corporate Law to impose limits on corporate political contributions. But, as you have seen with health care, corporations already have the means to undo any statutes they find inconvenient. If this does not become a major issue this election year, and if nothing is done about it, I may be moving to Canada.

Ron_C's avatar

@Owl that is the issue I questioned. You may have stock in this country, we all do. The problem is that our shares have been undercut. The Supreme Court ruling has just made this an official pay-to-play system. Unless you have a tremendous your choices will be between corporation picked candidates. There may be independent voters but independent candidates are a thing of the past.

Ron_C's avatar

I didn’t see Olbermann’s broadcast until @laureth posted the link. Olbermann is exactly on point in his predictions, frankly I think that 5 out of the 9 justices made themselves eligible for impeachment. Of course the right wing will support them until it it too late. I never thought that I would live long enough to see the dismantling of American Democracy.

dpworkin's avatar

Olberman is an hysteric.

dpworkin's avatar

And there was no real American Democracy to dismantle after about 1947.

Ron_C's avatar

@pdworkin according to your posts you seem to think that nothing will change and you are somehow blaming Obama. Personally I blame everyone that voted for the presidents from Johnson on down. We have seen the country slowly slipping into corporate fascism, this court decision only makes it official. What elections that weren’t won were stolen and the public consensus was that we believers were just poor losers. When congress allowed Roberts and Aileto on the court they pounded the final nail in to democracy’s coffin.

To all of the others above, thank you for answering my question. Frankly, I was hoping for someone to tell me that my fears were unfounded. Now if feel very sad for what is left of my country.

dpworkin's avatar

I don’t blame Obama, I blame the coalition among Congress, the Pentagon, and big industrialists that developed during and after WWII.

I am disappointed by Obama, but that is because he was so convincing during the campaign.

Ron_C's avatar

@pdworkin I agree that this was a long time coming. If I didn’t know better I would say that his victory was corporately engineered. I had considered voting for McCain until he picked caribou Barbie as his running mate. I think that the election was thrown on purpose because McCain’s backing was never really strong with the right wing, the right wing didn’t want to take the blame for the havoc they has wrought. I noticed that immediately after the election they started blaming Obama for everything his predecessors had done. I’m not big on conspiracy theories but this sure looks like one.

DrMC's avatar

The illusion of ownership is part of our plan. Actually the US has been owned by China for some time.

Don’t worry, we have been working to make the societies more similar to allow easier reeducation.

: )

janbb's avatar

Who is this guy?

Ron_C's avatar

@DrMC you have a point, finally.

@janbb evidently he is our communist nemesis comedian. Let him go, he’s sometimes funny, sometime disrespectful and sometime irrelevant. Either way he isn’t hurting anybody.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@laureth I know, I’m a lefty. :-) What I meant is that I don’t hear right-wingers screaming about this. If it were somehow related to abortion, they’d be yelling “judicial activism” at the top of their lungs. Somehow, they’re mysteriously silent right now…

tinyfaery's avatar

It’s all a lot of the same ol’ same ol’. Why such the fuss?

laureth's avatar

@tinyfaery – because it’s not the same-old. It’s something that corporations as of yet been unable to do legally (at least aboveboard).

@Dr_Dredd – Most corporate donations probably go to business-friendly Republicans. Perhaps that’s fine with them, for now?

tinyfaery's avatar

Now it’s just on the books. Corporate money has always had it’s hand in politics and it always will. It’s just another day in America.

laureth's avatar

@tinyfaery – of course it always has, and always will. The difference is in the amount. Companies have never been allowed to “donate” past a certain amount, which limited how beholden a candidate was to that company. If they were allowed unlimited funds from regular citizens and only x% from corporations, they lobbied harder for citizens, because citizens had more of a “say” – and the candidate, in turn, would depend more on citizens for re-election funds. It kept them more accountable to where they ought to be, at least theoretically.

Now imagine a candidate who gets a few thousand from people like you and me, but millions from corporations. Who are they going to help out when they’re elected? Yes, I know it seems like it’s always been like this, but it’s like looking at a car doing 25mph and a car doing 75mph and saying there’s no difference because they’re both moving.

tinyfaery's avatar

I still see no difference. Maybe I just gave up a hope of any change along time ago. There was that 6 months or so where I was told “yes we can”, but that was a big fuckin’ lie I will never fall for again.

Zuma's avatar

@tinyfaery Now Exon can write a single check that is larger than all individual contributions combined, and now everybody knows that there is not a single thing they can do about it.

tinyfaery's avatar

If I’m not shocked then I’m not shocked. Are you trying to convince me I should be?

DrMC's avatar

Oh god does this mean microsoft will force us to do things now?

Ron_C's avatar

@laureth maybe the right isn’t yelling because they think that now they will get their way. What they fail to consider is that they bill bulldozed as soon as they are no longer corporately useful.

The anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-everything that makes the U,S, a free and democratic country will find themselves discarded when they no longer provide useful cover for corporate governance.

Also, maybe real conservatives are quiet because the feel guilty, they really screwed up,

Ron_C's avatar

@tinyfaery The whole purpose of the U.S. constitution was to create an environment where everyone had the chance to prosper. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Supreme Court just gave the corporations an instant majority and took away all recourse from the minority.

When corporate decisions desire a law or change in law, they just pay congress and it is so. No more discussion, no more protection for the dissenters. Don’t you see that before this decision there were ways go cut back on corporate interference, now there is none, Democracy has been truly undone.

laureth's avatar

In a 1990 case (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce), the Supreme Court said ”the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s suport for the corporation’s political ideas.” Implementing that idea, a campaign finance law (McCain-Feingold) placed limits on how much corporations could spend on the sort of political ads that say “vote for” or “vote against” a political candidate, and most emphatically on how close to the election they could place those ads.

This decision threw out those restrictions for corporations; it’s an open question whether it also applies to labor unions. (A plain reading suggests it did, but some attorney will doubtless argue otherwise.)

That further legal mischief may be coming was hinted at by the major dissenting opinion (Source):

“Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” It is a tantalizing notion.

Suppose that General Motors Corp., troubled that a candidate for Congress from Michigan was too favorable to the United Auto Workers, decided to do everything in its corporate power to defeat that candidate. So, aside from spending huge sums of its own money (none of it federal bailout money) to influence the outcome, it went to the
office of the voting registrar in downtown Detroit. It sought to sign up, affirming that it was a citizen and resident of Michigan. Denied registration, it sued, claiming that, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it was a “person,” and, as a “citizen,” it was entitled to equal protection under the election laws. Would the Supreme
Court buy that?

General Motors might already be halfway to winning its lawsuit. It has been understood, for decades, that corporations are “persons” under the Constitution. And nothing the Supreme Court said Thursday undermined that notion. If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.

@tinyfaery – I can’t tell you that you should be shocked, but I can say that this is a good reason for Americans to be shocked. To think that this is “same old same old” is to misunderstand the way campaign finance law worked before this ruling.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@DrMC Microsoft is already forcing us to do stuff. Every time that little “click for a security update” icon pops up in the corner of the screen…

tinyfaery's avatar

It has nothing to do with my misunderstanding anything. It has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution or campaign finance blah, blah, blah, or what America is “supposed” to be. I know America is run by the corporations and all of our voting and protest and pie in the sky ideas that anything we do changes anything fundamentally, is just a joke. I guess we’ll see how much our lives change because of this.

Zuma's avatar

One way to fix this is to institute public financing of political campaigns. I am afraid, however, that this may be the “single payer” of campaign finance reform; i.e., the one thing that will truly work that is thrown under the bus at the first sign of resistance.

It couldn’t hurt to write to the President and convey this to him at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

dpworkin's avatar

You remained bedazzled by the fiction that any president matters any more. It’s way too late, and it has been for a long time.

Zuma's avatar

@dpworkin It is precisely in moments of panic and crisis, when things are in flux, that politicians pay close attention to their mail. It is at times like these where even a small group of motivated people acting in together can make a difference. President Obama issued a challenge to Wall Street and, by extension, to corporate power, just moments before the Supreme Court issued its decision. He is much more likely to follow through and put up a fight on behalf of the American people if he knows that we are behind him.

I am not ready to count him out even before the 2010 election cycle gets under-weigh. This could very well be the issue that rallies his base. So, I am not willing concede anything until I have seen that campaign played out before my very eyes. There is no possible way to know that things are “too late”; but if we listen to you we have lost for sure. If you aren’t willing willing to lift a finger to save yourself, please don’t discourage people who are trying to fight back.

This is, after all, one of the few things we can do as citizens.

dpworkin's avatar

Let’s revisit this again in 6 months, and see how satisfied you are with what was accomplished. Put it in your calendar, I’ll be here.

Zuma's avatar

@dpworkin Okay, remind me if I forget. But win or lose, at least I tried.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

OK, I give up. Why did you switch from @pdworkin to @dpworkin?

dpworkin's avatar

it’s in my profile, if you care to look

Ron_C's avatar

@Zuma campain financing has been a perennial subject in congress and reform has ALWAYS been cosmetic, only. Do you really think that the present congress will cut down the money tree now that all of their thievery and mischief are now legal? The Supreme court has essentially abrogated the constitution. We are now an official corporate fascist state.

5/9 of the Supreme court are traitors to the constitution and deserve a traitor’s punishment. Of course there are few left to punish them.

Ron_C's avatar

@dpworkin how can you blame this on Obama? All of the justices that voted against freedom were nominated by Republicans.

and Olbermann wasn’t hysterical, he was just telling the truth and predicting a likely future.

Zuma's avatar

@Ron_C Its easy to lapse into cynicism and despair. As ineffectual as our campaign finance laws may have been, they did offer some constraints against the most egregious forms of corruption and abuse. Those are now sadly gone. To get a sense of just how much is lost read Stevens’ dissent (around 30 pages in).

Ron_C's avatar

@Zuma thanks, I’m not sure I can read it now, I’m getting ready for bed and don’t need something that will give me nightmares. I’ll read it tomorrow when I’m fortified with beer.

dpworkin's avatar

@Ron_C I don’t blame Obama. I merely recognize that with all the good will in te world he is still irrelevant. And this state of affairs preceded the Liberal Supreme Courts.

Ron_C's avatar

@dpworkin It has been a long time since we have had a liberal Supreme court. I also agree hasn’t lived up to his hype and promises. I sincerely hope that he does but the point is not that a Republican won a senate seat from Massachusetts but why people turned against Democrats. Probably the main reason is that the democrats started acting like Republicans plus they seem to give in on every point even when they know that the only goal the Republicans is to ruin Obama’s presidency.

I think that if the democrats had just voted to allow anyone to enroll in Medicare, Brown would not have won. That doesn’t mean that the bill would have passed but at least the democrats meant what they said. This year’s spectacle with one senator being able to derail the entire process show that the current body does not have the courage of their convictions. In fact, I doubt that most of them have convictions. It is very very depressing because there seems to be little to differentiate between parties.

dpworkin's avatar

The last time we had a powerful social-democrat presidency was under LBJ, but he wasted his treasure and his credibility on the Vietnam war, forever tainting his place in history despite the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights acts of the ‘60s.

Before that there was FDR (we never learned what kind of president Kennedy would have made, but from his first 3 years we know that he was reckless militarily, unwilling to conduct diplomacy with Iron Curtain countries, and being advised by a flawed cadre.)

The military-industrial-Congressional complex (Eisenhower originally mentioned the Congress in his warning speech to the nation, but was convinced by his staff to drop the word) began during the war and was cemented in 1947, long before the Warren Court, which did nothing to intervene against their rapacity.

Ron_C's avatar

@dpworkin I really hated Johnson because I figured that he tried to get me killed for his personal vanity.

I was just a kid when Eisenhower but remember the speech. I also notice that it make virtually no difference. For the life of me, I can’t understand how the supreme court justified making corporations the equivalent of real humans.

This not only verifies Eisenhower’s speech, it makes it the Military Industrial (Congressional) complex legal.

There will be no health care reform, medicare and social security will be privatized, banks will have free range marketing dubious products and interest rate charges. Oh what a brave new world we are facing.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther