"At the heart of the American political economy is a tension between the undemocratic organization of capitalism and the democratic procedures that regulate the elected branches of national government" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 36). Or, in the case of the Supreme Court, the appointed brance of national government. Supreme Court justices are not elected, they are appointed by the President of the United States and approved by Congress in whatever year a vacancy becomes available. Due to the hightened polarized nature of our politics in America today, this process is inherently political.
On January 21, 2010 the Supreme Court issued a ruling on a case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This ruling stated that "political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast" (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/). There have been points of argument over this ruling, but the general consensus is this ruling may have opened the floodgates to increased corruption through corporate engineering of our election process as well as codifying into law, more than had been the case before, the idea of "corporate personhood".
As explained in the video above, corporations are comprised of individuals but do not operate in the real world as an individual citizen. While they may influence the political process as individuals, their interests lie in maximizing profits only. They are also not equally responsible for the fallout of their negative decisions. It is impossible to send a corporation to prison for murder, for example, even though in rare cases an individual employee might be prosecuted for wrongdoing. The corporation continues to operate unabated regardless of the consequences for individual employees. So "corporate personhood" seems an idea designed to privatize profits and socialize losses.
Procedurally, the Supreme Court is designed to be a non-political check to the inherently political executive and legislative branch of government. But, as we have seen throughout the history of the United States, the Supreme Court can be used to advance political agendas. In this case, the "mobilization of bias" toward business interests and corporations seems to have been further entrenched in our democracy. "The US economic and political system is fundamentally biased in favor of business. This bias is deeply embedded in the political framework. Even before the first vote is cast, the first campaign contribution is made, and the first lobbyist contacts a member of Congress, business possesses a political advantage stemming from its ownership and control of the productive system" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 38). I argue this decision has removed an important check on the unfettered influence of corporate power in our democracy. And the Supreme Court failed to address the question of transnational corporations, money from other countries. No influential corporation is confined any longer to national borders. Are we as citizens comfortable with the idea of international money pouring into our political system and our democracy?
Some argue this decision has overturned an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Indeed, that was the position of the Supreme Court and some advocacy groups (including the ACLU). However, this decision fails to explain the deeper question, that of "corporate personhood". I will explore this idea in further posts.
So my critical question is this: "What, in short, is the relationship of capitalism and democracy" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 12) in a post-Citizens United world?
No comments:
Post a Comment