The Return of the “Robber Barons” in the U.S.
Published in El Espectador
(Colombia) on 8 February 2010
by Daniel Pacheco (link to original)
“With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.”
With these words, The New York Times described the consequences of the ruling that allows corporations and unions to finance political messages during election time in the United States. What does the ruling of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission state? Why talk about a reversal of 100 years in American democracy?
“Hillary: The Movie” is a 90-minute production that aired via video-on-demand television during the Democratic primaries in 2008. Shortly after its distribution, its airing was halted by the Federal Election Commission, since it violated the laws that prevented corporations from participating in politics during election periods. According to the Commission, the sole purpose of the documentary was “to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her.” Indeed, the film is a collection of testimonies from conservative commentators tossing gems, such as Dick Morris’: “Hillary is the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist.”
Citizens United, the authors of the film, a nonprofit organization financed by large associations of corporations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, sued the Commission, and the case reached the Supreme Court. On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court ruled, overturning two previous rulings and granting corporations the same rights of expression as individuals. In the words of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The previous law, drafted in 2002 by the bipartisan duo, Senators McCain-Feingold, established prohibition of “electioneering communications” funded by corporations or unions 30 days before a presidential primary or 60 days before the presidential election.
Obama referred to the Court’s ruling as “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.”
The real consequences of this revolution in U.S. politics will soon be seen in November’s Congressional elections, and the corporations’ intentions are not timid. Thomas J. Donohue, president of the Chamber of Commerce, has announced that his organization is preparing for the “largest and most aggressive” campaign effort in the group’s 100 years. “As Americans choose a new House and new senators this fall, the Chamber will highlight lawmakers and candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda, and hold accountable those who don’t.”
Voters still have the last word. The question is: Can opinion be bought?
With these words, The New York Times described the consequences of the ruling that allows corporations and unions to finance political messages during election time in the United States. What does the ruling of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission state? Why talk about a reversal of 100 years in American democracy?
“Hillary: The Movie” is a 90-minute production that aired via video-on-demand television during the Democratic primaries in 2008. Shortly after its distribution, its airing was halted by the Federal Election Commission, since it violated the laws that prevented corporations from participating in politics during election periods. According to the Commission, the sole purpose of the documentary was “to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her.” Indeed, the film is a collection of testimonies from conservative commentators tossing gems, such as Dick Morris’: “Hillary is the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist.”
Citizens United, the authors of the film, a nonprofit organization financed by large associations of corporations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, sued the Commission, and the case reached the Supreme Court. On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court ruled, overturning two previous rulings and granting corporations the same rights of expression as individuals. In the words of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The previous law, drafted in 2002 by the bipartisan duo, Senators McCain-Feingold, established prohibition of “electioneering communications” funded by corporations or unions 30 days before a presidential primary or 60 days before the presidential election.
Obama referred to the Court’s ruling as “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.”
The real consequences of this revolution in U.S. politics will soon be seen in November’s Congressional elections, and the corporations’ intentions are not timid. Thomas J. Donohue, president of the Chamber of Commerce, has announced that his organization is preparing for the “largest and most aggressive” campaign effort in the group’s 100 years. “As Americans choose a new House and new senators this fall, the Chamber will highlight lawmakers and candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda, and hold accountable those who don’t.”
Voters still have the last word. The question is: Can opinion be bought?
Previous article![]( "The Legacy of Charlie Wilson")
Next article![]( "Banking: The Volcker Plan is Insufficient")
