January 22, 2010 at 10:51am
A.M. thoughts from our news staff:
Tuesday's Massachusetts election outcome was depressing, but not catastrophic. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision letting corporations help finance political campaigns was something else entirely.
The intersection of campaign finance and the First Amendment is complicated, to be sure. But we're going to have to figure this out. Turning government over to wealthy special-interest groups is wrong, dangerous, and undemocratic.
In a current Nation online column, John Nichols notes that limitations on corporate influence in election campaigns date back to Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. "All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law," Roosevelt said.
Now, writes Nichols, it may take a constitutional amendment to restore that principle.
Corporations are important, unquestionably. But they have a disproportionate amount of resources, and their lobbying is based on their own vested interest, not on the public interest. And as consolidations continue, we'll see more consolidation of their power and resources.
Public interest and trust in elections and government is low enough as it is. The court's decision will breed more disaffection and distrust.
There may be one sign of hope: the court's ruling certainly goes against the mood of the country right now. Opponents - members of Congress as well as activist groups - immediately sprang into action yesterday, pledging to find remedies. Some are pushing legislation to establish public financing. Others are talking about a constitutional amendment.
None of that will happen quickly, though. And Republican leaders seem happy with the court ruling. Maybe the same public that has been upset at what they think is a Democratic push for bigger government will become concerned about bigger corporate influence, which can squash middle-class interests like a bug.
And maybe they'll take to heart the warning from New York Senator Chuck Schumer: "The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November's elections. It won't be Republicans. It won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America."
"Our candidate must be someone who can instinctively turn right to constitutional, conservative...
I, too, agree that this diagnosis rings true. Of course, ever medical avenue should be explored,...
Norm I agree with you 100%. It is stupendlously stupid for people to be REQUIRED to buy...
about Supreme Court hearing on health-reform raises concerns
Respectfully Tom, you seem to forget that the President swore an oath to preserve, protect and...
The last line in this page - you don`t make any sense, non what so ever, How many Millions...
about Supreme Court hearing on health-reform raises concerns
Comments for "TOWLER: Our anti-democracy Supreme Court" (2)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these reviews. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove reviews at their discretion.
Tom Janowski said on Jan. 23, 2010 at 9:45am
We the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, buy candidates, insure our campaign ads are seen, provide for an easy time for our businesses, promote the transfer of jobs overseas, and secure the blessings of lower taxes for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of American Corporations.
Steve said on Jan. 24, 2010 at 11:48pm
Wondering why you didn't mention once that the very same ruling will also allow big labor unions to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns from their general funds.
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.