I love looking at political cartoons; in my opinion, they sum up the pure essence of any political debate. My most recent favorite shows a corporate titan with a loudspeaker that completely dwarfs that of an ordinary citizen. You can see it here at “Political Irony.” To me, this Steve Sack cartoon aptly addresses the fallout that may result from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that finds no difference between a corporation and an individual in terms of free speech and allows unlimited corporate spending in elections. (You can read the Supreme Court decision (PDF, 2.57MB) on “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” on the court’s Web site.)
In the 5-to-4 decision, the majority of the Justices cite the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. They hold that the government does not have the authority to limit businesses’ right to free political speech. The dissenting Justices, however, say that allowing unlimited corporate money to flow into election campaigns will “buy” politicians and corrupt democracy. The ruling potentially also opens the door for foreign entities to contribute to campaigns.
President Obama quickly criticized the January 21 Supreme Court decision, saying it “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”
During his State of the Union Address, President Obama criticizes a Supreme Court ruling permitting more corporate involvement in elections.
“With all due deference to separation of powers,” the president said, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”
The president also urged Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct the problems he believes the Supreme Court decision will generate. We’ll have to see if Congress will respond to the president’s request.
Freedom of speech is a cherished human right in democracies, but — let’s face it — some people have bigger mouths and louder voices, especially when those voices are backed by significant money. Should the free speech of “big money” be limited to keep elections and political debate fair? Should foreign entities play a role in U.S. elections? Where do you draw the line?
By making money the sole yard stick of success, development, GDP, war effort, peace initiatives and any other activity, of an individual or the state, we place our destiny under it. There is a greater chance of its influence being curtailed if it is visible and can be gauged.
Any evil that comes out in the open shall whither away as opposed to what is practiced in private maintains the Mahabharata. If Washington is not immune to the influence of big money then how can its politics be so?
Does terminal cancer yield to pious hopes or prayers?
The Supreme Court has made an enormous error in extending freedom of speech to include financing. To me, this is clearly against the original intent of the Bill of Rights and a headstrong interpretation of free speech. If financing constitutes speech, the notion of one person, one vote is dead.
In addition, when did we start granting human rights to legal entities?
very timely topic.