Who is supporting this decision in Washington DC?
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Republican Leader:
“For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day.”
Congressman John Boehner (R-OH), House Republican Leader:
“I think the Supreme Court decisions today are a big win for the First Amendment and a step in the right direction.”
Robin Conrad, U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
“Today’s ruling protects the First Amendment rights of organizations across the political spectrum, and is a positive for the political process and free enterprise.”
What the Republican Party and pro business forces are intentionally ignoring is that transnational corporations that are incorporated in the US will now have greater influence over our elections and government policies. The big 5 banks Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley have set aside over $100 billion, that is BILLION, in compensation packages for the year 2009. If they only took 10% of this money and put it towards candidates in the 2010 mid-term elections, they would easily triple the amount of money spent in 2008 election cycle, which was the largest spending election cycle in US history. This is only the money that went to compensation of few thousand people. Just think of how much money would be readily at hand to be invested from their treasuries? Every politician will then need to be pro-corporation to have a chance of winning an election.
American domestic policies will lean to the biggest donor interest instead of the people. It would be in the big 5 banks best interests to invest a few billion dollars into candidates that would support the idea that the TARP funds don’t need to be paid back, which would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That is a good investment for their stockholders and their legal duty as a corporation. These incredible dollar amounts would be able to dominate all information/ propaganda coming into the public airwaves and drowning out any voices that opposed their interests. Another example would be CITGO Petroleum Corporation could now donate unlimited amounts in advertising/ free speech to support or oppose a specific candidate that represents their interests. Who is CITGO? CITGO is owned/ controlled by the country of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez and has annual revenue that exceeds $32 billion. This decision will strip American sovereignty even more than our free trade agreements and WTO already do.
The word “corporation” is not found in the Constitution of United States of America. Corporations are and were always meant to be subservient to the people. Originally corporations were only allowed an allotted lifespan, amount of capitalization, purpose or project. A corporation also could not own another corporation and it’s shareholders were liable. This was to prevent monopolies and accumulated wealth. In the 1886 decision Santa Clara v Southern Pacific corporate personhood was not ruled on but put into a head-note of the decision. This head-note has been used as precedent of law in rulings involving corporate personhood and the 14th amendment ever since. The 14th amendment was enacted to ensure ex-slaves were given the rights of human beings under US Constitution along with due process and equal protection of the law. From 1890 to 1910 the 14th amendment was used in 307 cases and 288 of those cases were brought by corporations under the guise corporate personhood in contrast to the 19 that were brought by African Americans.
Corporations should not have US Constitutional rights of nature persons under the law and money should not equal free speech.
Sign petition at www.movetoamend.org.