Saturday, May 1, 2010

Americans should be the masters to which the Supreme Court serves

Is our Supreme Court partisan?! I thought they ruled by interpretation of the law, not along political lines. They recently dismantled the McCain-Feingold bill, and upended 100 years of political campaign contribution regulations. They voted 5-4; with the 5 votes awarding corporations and unions to openly contribute to political campaigns with no restrictions on the dollar amounts, coming from the "conservative" justices, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Scalia. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force" while defending his broad interpretation of the right to free speech, in justifying his vote. The loudest dissenter of the 4 justices voting against the ruling was Justice John Paul Stevens, the most conservative of the 4, "liberal" justices which included, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor; he called it "profoundly misguided." Justice Kennedy also said that there was, "No basis for allowing government to limit corporate independent expenditures." Stevens countered with, "In the context of election to public office the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it."

How does this happen when for the last 100 years, the last 20 years in particular, the law has focused on regulation of corporate campaign contributions? The approving justices argue that the people control the actions of their respective corporate employers and unions with their voices, therefore their word will be heard louder and clearer. I can see this being slightly true when it comes to unions, but thinking the employee of large corporations has any voice heard by the decision makers of the company is naive at best. In the case of unions, yes the member has a vote, but if the union has its own agenda, the member has little choice but to go along, or quit. There are few people these days that can get out of the union without losing their jobs, or can afford to just quit their job because the union did not listen to them. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to recognize the negative influence corporations could have on our Democratic process, and started the regulation process, he said:

"Limitless corporate spending...is one of the principle sources of political corruption...not one (special interest, corporate) voice is entitled to a vote in Congress, on the bench, or any representation in any public office."

Now after over 100 years of attempting to put a cap on the powerful, and biased influence of corporations, special interest, and unions, 5 of the people appointed to protect our rights, and uphold the law, as interpreted by our Constitution, have chosen to go against decisions made over a long period of time by very intelligent people on both sides of the aisle, and the experts that guide their decisions. President Obama called it, “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

What could these 5 have been thinking? Obviously they had an agenda, and obligation to fill that went against all common sense, and popular thought that served the people and benefited Americans, but was very profitable for the real power they serve, big business. To accomplish this they interpreted the First Amendment to equate financial contributions with free speech. A very Capitalistic interpretation of Democratic law in which to hand the main influence on our future over to the very people that lied, stole, and misrepresented themselves to US all, for direct profit and gain for themselves, and to the detriment of the American people and our Republic. The money these entities contribute to campaigns influences our elected officials, and prove to be a much louder voice, canceling the vote of the American citizen. These funds give special interest a voice in Congress that they are not entitled to by any interpretation of our Constitution. There will be huge, unregulated caches of money used to spread the propaganda of for-profit operations against the fiscally handicapped non-profit operations that work for US and protect our rights against the perpetual assault on America's best interests by these opportunistic, selfish, and greedy enterprises. Large corporations only employ 20% of the work force. Why should they have the lion's share of the influence on the laws meant to protect all of us? This will result in the further devaluation of each Americans vote, and the apathy that follows, resulting in lower voter turnout.

It is a logical and proven fact that the lower the voter turnout during election time, the less the will of the people is served. It also results in a higher number of Republicans taking office over their Democratic opponents. Now you know the masters our Supreme Court really serves.

No comments:

Post a Comment