Download Issue (pdf) - The Indypendent

Corporations Unleashed
Continued from page 11
national
search for ways to halt the flood of corporate
money into the political arena. Some activists
have focused on the original Santa Clara
“personhood” decision, especially after a 2003
book by radio host Thom Hartmann reported
that Santa Clara itself had not actually granted
corporations any such status in the first place
— the “corporations are persons” formulation
was actually written not by the judges but by the
court reporter, who placed it in the “headnotes”
that summarize the case but are not properly afforded
legal status.
In revealing the illegitimacy of the Santa
Clara decision, Hartmann had hoped to
invalidate the entire edifice of corporate
rights. “Boy, was I naïve,” he recently said.
Although the case was indeed improperly
used as precedent for later decisions, those
decisions still stand, as does the “corporations
are persons” formulation itself. Making
matters worse for those seeking to stop
the corporate juggernaut, Supreme Court
decisions in recent decades have, in general,
taken pains to avoid resting their rationales
on the personhood status of the corporation.
Rather, justices like Anthony Kennedy
have maintained that removal of restrictions
on corporate political expenditures interferes
with the First Amendment principle that
“voters must be free to obtain information
from diverse sources in order to determine
how to cast their votes.”
michael nelson
Critics have responded that, in reality,
overwhelming corporate advertising, rather
than supplying the public with useful
information, tends to drown out all competing
voices by inundating the public.
They assert that if corporations can determine
the outcome of elections through
overwhelming expenditures on advertising,
then democracy becomes merely a
sham or a formality. In his dissent, Justice
Stevens emphasized that point: “A democracy
cannot function effectively when its
constituent members believe laws are being
bought and sold.”
Some legal experts have pointed out that
the concept of “free speech” is an oxymoron
when applied to corporate expenditures
on advertising. According to Hofstra Law
School professor Daniel Greenwood, a corporate
manager is specifically required by
state law to act in the corporate interest,
rather than follow his or her own conscience,
and so is prohibited from speaking freely.
TAKING ACTION
Progressive activists have been quick to react
to the Citizens United decision, announcing
two initiatives to bottle up the corporate genie
by amending the constitution. The first
effort, known as Move to Amend, is sponsored
by an alliance of groups that includes
Liberty Tree Foundation, Ultimate Civics
and Democracy Unlimited. It advocates a
multi-part Constitutional amendment that
would clarify that political expenditures are
not equivalent to speech and that corporations
do not have constitutional rights, as
well as offering increased protections for
voters and local communities.
Riki Ott of Ultimate Civics says that Supreme
Court decisions granting constitutional
rights to corporations have “allowed
a consolidation of wealth and power to the
corporations that now threatens to destroy
the republic. [Just as we once needed to]
separate church and state; we now need to
separate corporation and state.”
The other effort, known as Free Speech
for People, is sponsored by Public Citizen,
Voter Action, the Center for Corporate Policy
and the American Independent Business
Alliance. It advocates a narrower amendment
that would correct the First Amendment
claims of corporations and their supporters
on the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, several members of Congress,
including Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), have
proposed corrective legislation. Proposals
include measures to exclude foreign-owned
corporations from campaigning privileges,
measures to require disclosure of corporate
political spending and measures to require
that corporate shareholders be consulted
prior to the spending of any corporate money
on political influence.
Of course, the passage of any corrective
measures faces a serious obstacle: the new
spending powers of corporations created
by Citizens United decision itself. Given
the demonstrated reluctance of most legislators
to defy even a single corporate sector,
whether that be Big Pharma, military
contractors, or Wall Street, how likely is
it that those same legislators will have the
courage to defy the corporation
Ted Nace is the author of Gangs of America:
The Rise of Corporate Power and the
Disabling of Democracy (Berrett-Koehler,
2003, 2005).
NOW AVAILABLE
Fresh from Berkeley, California!
Democratic Socialism:
Real Change
for a Change
National Youth ConfereNCe
Presented by the Young Democratic Socialists
Cornel
West
Keynote Speakers:
and
Gayatri
Spivak
Edited by
Terri Compost
“People’s Park Still Blooming”
This 200 page, full color, coffee-table book, artistically
reveals this amazing story of a fight for common land.
Edited by Terri Compost
Published by Slingshot Collective, the folks who bring you
the Slingshot Organizer Planner
Available Now at Bluestockings, 172 Allen St., NYC
and online at www.whoopdistro.org
Price: $24.95 Taste our history!
March 5–7
Norman Thomas High School · 111 East 33 Street, Manhattan
register today!
www.ydsusa.org/news/a-real-change-for-a-change
212-727-8160 · yds@dsausa.org · ydsusa.org
The Indypendent February 19 – March 11, 2010 15