The Cost of Freedom - Democracy for Sale to Highest Bidder

The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down its verdict in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. In a 5 - 4 decision the court ruled unlawful nearly everything in federal campaign finance law. This now allows corporations to 'donate' as much money as they like, for or against any given candidate or ballot measure. The ruling overturned over 100 years of precedent regarding funding of campaigns.

Is this not what is so often referred to as 'judicial activism' or 'legislating from the bench'? It never ceases to amaze that the politicians that scream the loudest about the judiciary, activism, etc. are unusually silent on this matter. It seems not to be a problem when a court issues a ruling they agree with.

In Missouri, federal courts tossed out voter-imposed contribution limits for being too low. But they eventually upheld more generous limits that the legislature had adopted in 1994. Earlier in the year, before the court ruled, Missouri voters passed campaign finance limits by an overwhelming 74% affirmative vote. When Governor Matt Blunt was elected and a Republican majority was elected in the General Assembly, this law (agreed to by the voters, the general assembly and the judiciary) was quickly changed.

Governor Blunt upon signing the bill into law accepted contributions as large as $300,000 from a Texas couple and at least 53 contributions of $25,000 or more. He later decided not to seek reelection. Jay Nixon, the then leading Democratic candidate, accepted $100,000 from a single labor union. And several senators received single contributions of $40,000, which promptly scared off potential challengers. What could go wrong with this well thought out and researched law? See Jeff Smith, Rod Jetton or El Amin for some possible ramifications.

According to 'Politico' In the 2008 election, Barack Obama and John McCain combined to spend about $1 billion, combined expenditures of the entire 2008 cycle came to "a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races." For this year's U.S. Senate race each candidate is looking at a budget that may well exceed $20,000,000.00. With no limits on how much can be contributed our political process has become a bit like a casino. For us small bettors, we need to stay at the $2 or $5 table; while the politicians & the corporations and wealthy play their games at the 'NO LIMIT' table in the back room. America should not be part of this game. The ante is much too high. Democracy can't afford it.

Do we really believe that elected officials are going to listen to regular citizens with average income that contributes to a campaign or candidate? Will there be any need for the $5, $25 or $100 contributions? In 2009 the following were bonuses paid (does NOT include wages) to some in the financial sector:

A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: "The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996. In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies "more than doubled" between 1996 and 2005. The ruling will permit the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies to take out or support ads for or against candidates, just as other U.S. corporations may now do.

Rep. Roy Blunt commented on the recent by saying he was: "pleased the court recognized that the freedom of speech cannot be legislated away. " I find this a bit odd since in the past Rep. Blunt has been quoted as being such an outspoken opponent of judicial activism. When Justice Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court he said: The most important issue when considering a Supreme Court nominee is their judicial philosophy and whether they are an activist who would attempt to legislate from the bench..."; after a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court on gay marriage he observed: "The Iowa Supreme Court chose today to legislate from the bench by redefining marriage without any concern or deference to the democratic process."

With its ruling the Supreme Court has completed, what Dahlia Lithwick calls the 'Pinocchio Effect' "...in which the Court transforms "a corporation into a real live boy, complete with personhood, free-speech rights...". This case will be written about in history books and this particular decision will be listed beside the Dred Scott case. In his dissent, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote about the role of corporations in national politics: "Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech."

My suggestion: From now on have our politicians become more like NASCAR drivers. When they are 'at work' have them wear uniforms which display the logo's of their corporate sponsors. The larger the contribution the more space you can have. Instead of worrying about state boundaries, perhaps we can change the titles to something a bit more appropriate such as: the distinguished Senator from Exxon or U.S. Representative from Wal Mart. The court said it was a matter of free speech.....I didn't know that money could talk but we know now for certain that 'speech' is something that must be paid for. It's your bet!