When Democrats Attack
Posted by admin - 31/01/10 at 08:01 pm“When Democrats Attack,” according to the dictionary of far right wing blogging, is whenever they open their mouths, and say something that the far right wing does not like.
Obama makes a point about the Supreme Court. A good point, too, since it will be impossible to disentangle the pure nationality of many large corporations today. And coming on the heels of what is probably one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of the United States. And suddenly, to some on the far right, it’s a hateful,”fomenting” attack.
By this standard, whereby Obama simply impugned the decision of the Court itself, what would one call what has been said by many leaders of the far right wing against Obama? Rape and pillage? That may still not do justice to the disparity between what the far right has said about Obama, and getting upset at Obama for publicly disagreeing with, and calling out a decision that he (for the most part correctly) claims overturns decades of law, and even more precedent, in this country.
Here’s the real issue, and it’s one of substance, not of attacks. (But turning it into this once again anti-Obama game is a way to avoid the substance):
Was Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission a good decision or not?
Corporations can now spend unfettered amounts on behalf of candidates for public office. Corporations are not individuals, but represent an amalgamation of individuals, organized into what is purely a legal, in many ways fictional entity, with a decided and usually very solitary goal — normally the pursuit of profits in its field. Now, suddenly, money expended — which directly correlates the ability to acquire money, and the money so acquired, with the ability to directly influence the outcome of elections — can be spent by body-less legal entities that have almost none of the responsibilities of an actual human being.
Body-less legal entities who nevertheless now, under this bizarre, and extremely ill founded Supreme Court decision, will have not just the same free speech rights as individuals, but in some ways even more “right,” or at least practical ability — as a corporation’s ability to make money is often unlimited. In fact, such ability is in most cases, a corporation’s sole purpose.
This is not bad, normally, but it is when radically right wing Supreme Courts (four far right wing Justices, four moderate to liberals, and one conservative who in this ruling made a mistake) decide that this is also unfettered free speech, as well; and that the battle for the greatest direct influence upon our elections should be between corporations and individuals, not between individuals as members of corporations or not, and between those corporations, yet again still, with the most money.
There is already too large of an influence of money upon the integrity of our larger elections, and invariably, on the part of those who hold office. The Supreme Court, voluntarily, through a terribly reasoned opinion, just made it a lot worse; and, in some ways, much more direct. If advertisements didn’t work, our economy wouldn’t revolve around them. It’s little different for politics. Only now, its body-less, sometimes even border-less, often for profit, corporate entities, doing the advertising. Sometimes, with it not even being openly acknowledge or recognized as such.
Something short about the blog and or author(s). The heading and/or photo could be linked to the about page.