Pen vs sword, Part II

Today I read an editorial from the January 21, New York times. Seems the writer shares my feelings about this being one of the most damaging rulings ever to the face of American democracy. A small quote from that editorial:
This issue should never have been before the court. The justices overreached and seized on a case involving a narrower, technical question involving the broadcast of a movie that attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 campaign. The court elevated that case to a forum for striking down the entire ban on corporate spending and then rushed the process of hearing the case at breakneck speed. It gave lawyers a month to prepare briefs on an issue of enormous complexity, and it scheduled arguments during its vacation.

If that paragraph doesn't strike fear in your heart, try this one on for size:
The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.

Corporate contributions to advertising in the media--in any of it's multitude of forms--will control elections, plain and simple. If pharmaceutical companies want a particular candidate elected--they most certainly have the financial wherewithal to make that happen.

And try this final quote on for size--most particularly if you are a liberal thinker, since as long as this ruling stands there will be very few liberal or even middle of the road thinkers left in office.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the ruling not only threatens democracy but “will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” History is, indeed, likely to look harshly not only on the decision but the court that delivered it. The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.

None of us will benefit from a one party system--which this ruling was designed to create. Oil companies, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies should not be running this country--they should not have Congress in their proverbial pockets--but this ruling promotes that. I agree with the president when he says that these powerful corporations will drown out the voices of ordinary Americans. Every single American who has ever voted in an election should be writing their Congressman to make changes in laws to prevent this. This ruling has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with politcal corruption.

The Pen: mightier than the sword?

The pen is mightier than the sword. What wisdom in that statement. In a bloodless coup, the US Supreme Court, or should I say the five most conservative justices, all nominated by Republican presidents, have just changed the face of American elections, local and national. Now any corporation with enough money can influence the outcome of an election by dumping an unlimited amount of funds into media blitzes for the candidates of their choice. If you are reading this and have even a modicum of intelligence you know which candidates those will be.

While the contribution limits to federal campaigns remains in tact, any corporation with money can run any type of ad to persuade the general public to vote their way. How many of those ads will be imbued with integrity or veracity? As it is now, local and national news entities hustle to provide fact checks for the unlimited drivel that spews in campaign advertisements.

Where are the likes of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who in one of his most quoted decisions, restricted free speech when it interfered with the efforts of the US government to recruit soldiers during wartime? How will the content of ads be controlled? Who will do the fact checking? A recent conservative presidential adviser embodied the adage of “tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.” Most people do not check the “facts.” I know this to be true by the excessive number of shady, dishonest and hurtful political forwards I receive. “Pass it on” is the motto of the email forwarder. If it’s on the Internet, it must be true, right? How many conservative, business friendly candidates will be elected before our system is one party only?

I believe this decision by the high court will insure an overrun of Republican candidates who walk into office, propelled by the ever present media blitzes paid for by corporate entities who will directly benefit from their election. Is that freedom of speech or electoral manipulation?