The Corporate Civil Rights Movement
"Of the people, by the people, for the people" sure makes more sense now that corporations are considered people. They actually have been for quite some time, but the latest Supreme Court ruling has fully converted our elections into auctions. Remember when a doe-eyed John Roberts said he only wanted to call balls and strikes? He was so cute!
So is this the death knell of Democracy or simply an admission of what's been happening for quite a while now? Time will tell, but on Democracy Now! last Friday, Jamin Raskin, a Professor of Constitutional Law at American University and a Maryland State Senator, threw out some frightening numbers:
I looked at just one corporation, Exxon Mobil, which is the biggest corporation in America. In 2008, they posted profits of $85 billion. And so, if they decided to spend, say, a modest ten percent of their profits in one year, $8.5 billion, that would be three times more than the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign and every candidate for House and Senate in the country spent in 2008. That’s one corporation. So think about the Fortune 500.
posted by Matt Bors at
1:59 AM
6 Comments:
I heard that comment and just about drove into the ditch.
Does he really think stockholders would not revolt if Exxon spent 8.5 billion dollars on campaigns? Wall Street would be crying for the CEO's head and every analyst would be downgrading the stock as fast as they could. Keep in mind that millions of Americans would be financially as they either hold Exxon stock directly or through their retirement plans, 401k's, IRA's...
It's very easy to be generous with other peoples money -"Joe Moneybags should give more to charity/pay more taxes/..." and these comments are more of the same, albeit in a different direction than usual. It's easy to say that someone could spend a "modest" 10% of their profits, but that is still just being genorous with other people's money.
The supreme court shouldn't have even taken this case. It was the wrong case arguing the wrong law.
The trouble is that the Hillary documentary is protected free speech (even though its as partisan as a Michael Moore movie). It's an odd case because, say you were in ACLU lawyer, you would have to be on the side of the free speech, even though most ACLU lawyers would despise giving corporations the power to influence elections.
That being said, the case is about the funding, not the documentary. It's like going back to the religious non-profits being unable to promote candidates. It has nothing to do with free speech. A church can endorse any candidate they want, they just need to give up that 501(c) status first and pay some god damned taxes. The tax break is a privilege, not a right.
In the same way, this has nothing to do with free speech and more to do with campaign influence and the fact the corporations aren't people.
I will say this. I am for the censorship of speech and our first amendment in this one way: ban paid advertising for political candidates in any office (local, state and federal). This is the way things are in some countries in Europe (Ireland, UK et al...I think?). Really this may not be considered a violation of free speech since a news company can chose to show candidates in debates, on their own without being paid to do so...maybe in the spirit of the law if not the letter at least.
In response to John up there, an individual company stock holder owns a couple of shares. What they think doesn't matter. The majority holders are going to want to do what's necessary to keep the company profitable, even if that means dumping money into political campaigns to endorse candidates that will support their poor environmental and anti-competitive policies.
I think deep down these executives and large steak holders feel like they're doing the best thing for everyone (employees, customers, themselves) and large companies aren't necessarily a bad thing, but the economy of scale has shown they become inefficient and turn into something more sinister collectively.
Sumit,
I never said anything about some small time investor calling up the CEO and having influence. Agreed, it is totally ineffective. But when an investment house downgrades a stock, the street responds.
Also keep in mind what the corporation was that won the SCOTUS decision - it wasn't a Fortune 500 company - it was Citzens United, an ad hoc group formed to stop Hillary. There is now nothing to prevent Mr. Bors here from starting Bors' Bloggin' Bunch from being formed as a corporation, pooling money and taking out ads to stop whoever they want.
My point was the Pro. Raskin was fearmongering. Somehow the tacit assumption that all political advertising is 100% effective is being made. That is not the case as there are plenty of examples where candidates are outspent and win. While the correlation of spending and winning is stronger, it is just a correlation. Did the winner win because (s)he spent more or because (s)he had more money to spend because (s)he was more popular?
Fearmongering. Fearmongering. Fearmongering.
A sane idea would be a shareholder revolt banning the use of investor funds to buy politicians. Then again, that would be responsible.
'Fearmongering'? Do you know how STUPID the average American is? Having the money to repeat a message ad nauseum is the sort of advantage that wins elections. It's why people actually believe in trickle-down.
Has this comic been taken down? I'm not able to view it.
Weird. Should be fine now.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home