‘ You may not be aware of it, but our democracy changed last week – and Americans certainly should be displeased.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday to remove government restrictions on corporate contributions to political advertising.
The law overturns years of precedent – previous laws and court decisions have indicated that the government was allowed to limit or ban ad spending by businesses in the interest of protecting the voice of the general citizenry against the overwhelming resources of industry titans.
The result of the court’s 5-4 battle, which was bitterly fought along ideological lines, was a sharp, rapid reversal of this philosophy.’
The majority argued corporations, which are technically considered ‘people’ in our legal system, have free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. ‘
I’m certainly all for freedom of speech: my job depends on it as much as my freedom. But the financial institutions that left our economy in shambles hardly seem like people to me. Monolithic businesses that have larger incomes than most countries’ GDPs hardly seem like people either. ‘
Yes, it’s technically true corporations are ‘people’ under the letter of the law. But this obviously inaccurate status is more a product of legal convenience than an actual assertion of humanity.’
It’s easy to call a corporation a person when that corporation is involved in a lawsuit or when it engages in a property dispute. But it’s significantly more difficult to argue a corporation, with fiscal resources dwarfing those of even the wealthiest human beings, should be allowed to throw its weight so easily into the political arena.
One of the first things you learn in a political communication class is money is the key to a successful political campaign. An articulate, supremely qualified but underfunded candidate will almost always lose to a foolish, inexperienced but wealthy competitor. However lame you might personally find targeted political ads, they are proven to sway the course of elections.
And the Supreme Court just officially permitted corporations to wield this power on a scale regular citizens are incapable of matching.
The implications of this decision on our democratic process can hardly be overstated. Allowing corporate funds to flow freely into the marketplace will likely drown out ordinary citizen voices.’ It will also swell the already colossal torrent of advertising that inundates voters during every election, further numbing voters and increasing political apathy.
Somebody needs to put the brakes on this, and they need to do it immediately.
The political climate is fortunately ripe for this decision to be nullified. President Obama and Congress will likely have the support of the American people in any attempt to minimize the influence corporate America has on elections – after all, anti-corporate sentiment is at an all-time high. In the media’s usual trite distillation, ‘Main Street’ is still out looking for blood on ‘Wall Street.’ It’s also likely most people can get behind preventing even more ads from dominating television in the months leading up to campaigns.
On the flip side, perhaps politicians themselves don’t want the decision reversed. Your average politician is always ready to accept a huge wad of cash or a favorable ad campaign, and this decision provides just another opportunity to fill their swollen war chests.
It’s therefore likely Obama will have to force the change needed to rectify the Court’s misguided ruling. For him, it’s a political gold mine – an opportunity to fight both ‘Wall Street’ and ‘politics as usual.’ It’s a chance to shore up slipping approval ratings in the wake of bungled health care reform fiasco.
But most importantly, it’s a chance for him to save our political process and leave power in the hands of the people – the real, living, breathing, voting people.
‘
Matthew Albright is a 21-year old mass communications junior from Baton Rouge.’ Follow him on Twitter @TDR_malbright.
‘
