I’m still pretty steamed about the the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission SCOTUS ruling. Not because I think it’s going to destroy the electoral process as we know it – I tend to agree with someone1 who was on Rachel Maddow’s show. Basically, he said that it just means instead of corporations paying for adds that say “Ask Senator Bob why he keeps killing puppies,” they can now run scarier attack adds that say, “Vote no for Senator Bob because he keeps killing puppies.” Functionally, I don’t see that much of a difference. The shadowy corporate paymasters can now just be a bit more open about throwing money around, I guess.
Of course, I’m sure there’s a lot of nuance I’m missing here, since I’m most definitely not a lawyer.
Anyway, the reason I’m ticked off about the SCOTUS decision is that I deeply resent the implication that corporations are in any way equated to, you know, actual people. Agreeing with Justice Stevens, here:
A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.
If nothing else, corporations have a lot more money to throw around than those of us who are supposed to be having an active voice in our own government. I know our congresscritters rarely listen to us to begin with, but this is just rubbing our noses in it.
I suppose this is an even more powerful argument for trying to aim your spending at corporations that espouse values that you support. Considering the concerns regarding the disclosure of donations to political campaigns that we’ve seen pop up during the Prop 8 dust-up, I admit I’m pretty worried that even that method of exercising individual power could be in jeopardy.
…and all this from a post that was just supposed to point at a cute an amusing link.
Here: an adorable picture of a cat. That should make it all better.
1 – Whose name I have forgotten, so you’ll just have to trust me on this one.