Corporate Campaign Finance Regulations Overruled by U.S. Supreme Court
By consider | January 22, 2010
Yesterday, on January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court passed a landmark decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that will drastically impact American politics, the upcoming 2010 midterm campaign season and the resulting U.S. legislation. It also dramatically erodes the idea that the U.S. Constitution was created for The People, individual People under the law. Instead, these ‘artificial people’ like Citizens United, or any other nonprofit organization (that are simply or intricately well funded by corporations) or any other organization, like a union (usually not so well funded) as a result of this ruling, now have more rights than any living, breathing, real person. These well-funded ‘artificial people’ like Citizens United, a corporately funded nonprofit organization, now have the right to use as much money as possible in order to influence the outcome of elections, and ultimately, U.S. legislation.
The recent Supreme Court decision effectively bastardizes U.S. elections and the resulting legislation. The Supreme Court ruled 5 against 4 (these types of rulings are always close) that the restrictions on the amount of funds spent by these organizations (perceived as artificial people) infringes on their first amendment right of free speech. Their collective decision has been built upon the history of previous Supreme Court decisions. The idea that money could be perceived as free speech was based on a previous 1978 ruling (5-4 National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 1977/1978) that decided that corporate money could be perceived as free speech thus could not be limited as free speech should not be limited. Yet common sense tells a thinking person that a corporation or organization is simply not a living, breathing person that the U.S. Constitution was created to protect. After all, it begins, “We, the People…
Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Stevens had to say:
The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
There are also sharp and strong undercurrents in this ruling that directly challenge the balance of power within the three branches of U.S. government. The balance of power in question is between the Judicial and Legislative branches. The Federal Elections Commission was created by Congress (Legislative branch) in order to limit the amount of corporate - based funds in elections, in an attempt to keep elections between rich or well funded candidates and poorly funded candidates more fair and equal. The recent ruling directly confronts the Legislative branch’s right to create legislation that limits the sometimes corrupting elements of cold, hard, seductive cash within the legislative (law creating) process.
It’s also important to understand sly corporate tactics. They will give themselves a name such as “Citizens United” or “Americans for Better Healthcare”, “Americans United for Good”, or something like “Citizens United For Good”, etc. in the attempt to further disguise themselves as actual citizens. Remember that they are not citizens. They are corporately funded ‘artificial people’, their goal being to further their neo-conservative agenda through the promotion of their media and propaganda. Check out the Citizens United website.
To better understand the development of this argument, we must go deeper into history. The idea that a corporation could be an ‘artificial citizen’ was decided in the post Civil War ruling, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). This was the first Supreme Court decision that decided thatcorporations could be perceived as artificial people with rights under the 14th amendment. (This is really a fascinating argument that I studied when doing the research for the documentary Considering Democracy. Here are other links to Supreme Court documents.
Arriving back in the present, we’ve seen the massive influx of funds in recent political campaigns in the presence the vast amounts of negative campaign advertisements and other types of media. Think of the sly effectiveness of the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam war veteran and his resulting swift political demise. Compare that against the odd reality of the armed service record of his opponent, George Bush Junior, who had more dubious lack of a military record, supplemented instead with a drunk driving record, as Kerry was risking his life in the military service abroad. It was an amazing and effective tactic that overrode rationality of the U.S. public. As a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the twisting of truth will be taken to new heights during the 2010 campaign season, with the Republicans (traditionally more lavishly well-funded by corporations) chomping at the bit to reclaim some legislative seats.
The need to prohibit corporate funds in the election process is incredibly important to uphold democracy and to defend the rights of the real People. In another egregious corporate funded campaign that led to stupid, or even ridiculous legislation, lies in the evidence in the wake of Enron, the failed gas-energy financial assets trading company. We look back to the actions of the massive injections of funds and donations to campaign finance and see the resulting legislation that helped to create the accumulation of vast profit - that never actually existed in the first place, created by the legislation that should have never been legislated, yet allowed the looting to occur. Had Enron, a corporation, not contributed lots and lots of money to the political system - to both Republican and Democrat, the deregulation likely would not have been passed. The recent Supreme Court ruling effectively allows legislation to be bought - and this can be in the direct opposition to the will of real People. The infusion of vast amounts of money will negatively impact the political consciousness and its resulting legislation. This type of non-person, a nonprofit group, this corporate type of campaign finance, along with continual lobbying throughout the year, is a malicious danger to democracy and to the Republic.
The idea that a restriction on spending money similarly restricts the first amendment rights of free speech, when examined, is a fallacy in interpretation. It is important to realize that the rulings in the area of ‘corporate personhood’ have been highly contested and highly controversial, and very close. They have all been 5-4 rulings.
The American People are growing tired and weary of the negativity and overburdening persistence of lies in the fabric of our political conversation. Individuals within both major parties, both Democrat and Republican are growing tired of corporate and special interest manipulation that ultimately creates policy that continues to distance the United States from all the other developed countries and the countries that espouse democracy. Has change occurred one year into a new administration? The majority of the People voted for change in the last election. It is something that many People have not forgotten and is something to think about. Considering Democracy.
(download 8 pg pdf - Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, source Justia)
Topics: Lobbyists and Corporate Power, Political Finance and the Supreme Court Questions, Politics | No Comments »
Reflections on Indy Filmmaking and the State of the U.S.
By consider | October 25, 2009
First of all, thank you for following and reading this. None of this could be possible without the audience. The process of making a film and then learning about distribution was an exciting, yet humbling experience. I’m really thankful for the process and how it has gone. Last fall at this time, I was finishing up a nationwide tour by driving 5 to 12 hours almost each day, traveling from screening to screening. It was a really exhausting process, but one that also allowed me an experience that reflected the general mood of the U.S. I was able to interact with audiences across the U.S. and heard what they were thinking and feeling. I wish that I had been able to tape footage of the Q&A from these screenings. It was really interesting. Across the country, people expressed similar questions, frustrations, as well as things that they take pride in. (Yes, it is important to remember the positive things, along with the things and concepts that people can have more critical thoughts on.)
There was definitely more optimism as the elections approached, yet there was a consistent mistrust of corporate power. It was very interesting that people from all different sections of the economy attended and commented on the film. People who had worked abroad both in the media and governmental organizations such as U.S. Aid also attended and commented on the shift that has taken place from the 1960’s to the current time. Interestingly, the 1960’s while often looked upon as being a time of various types of ‘liberation’ (for example, women’s liberation, sex, drugs and rock n’roll) politically, the 1960s were the opposite, as other developed countries created policy for their People; in the sense of healthcare of the whole population, social security for the whole population, while in the U.S., the population became segmented and compartmentalized as the various types of insurance companies lined up to capitalize on the American people. Thus, the United States has emerged as having very, very different social policy from the rest of the developed first-world nations. All the while, the U.S. continuing to lead the world in various types of technology - such as the development of the internet. (Although now the U.S. is starting to lag behind, but seriously, MS and the mac operating systems are the two most widely used in the world. Yet the world community within open source developments and applications are running closely behind, bring linux with it.) This leads us to the topic of internet and independent filmmaking.
The internet has helped tremendously within the process of independent distribution of films. It is sometimes bewildering because a person - the independent, actually can do it, but has to quickly learn to wear many different hats. After shooting the film, I sharp tuned my editing skills with the guidance of editors that were kind enough to share their expertise. It is a humbling process, but it had to be done. I then learned about marketing and distribution. Because I had quit my job to finish the film, in looking at the model of entering film festivals for a small documentary, it seemed that it would be more efficient to organize my own screenings. As opposed to traveling to various festivals, and and having to spend a lot of money in travel, hotel, food, when funds were really scarce, I decided to create a screening tour and screenings geographically a day apart. I then started cold calling theaters and other venues to line up screenings one after another. (It may seem like it was easy as you read this, but it definitely was not. Along with calling organizers sometimes up to 15 times, then finding the local media, then calling the arts editor for the newspaper and/or radio show, get them to accept a press kit with the film, then to try to get them to watch it, all the while still trying to get the organizer to lock in a screening… It was work.) Make no mistake, I really like film festivals, and have had great experiences at some of them because they allow a convergence of filmmakers, audience and art to take place. Film festivals, however, vary in how much they integrate the community, so some festivals will have packed screenings, while others will have a few people. They are usually over a few days, and could be scattered across the country, so it’s really expensive for filmmakers to travel to a film festival in NY, then one in California a couple of weeks later. Most films that are screening through film festivals have a website, but they can be a lot more than just an internet billboard for a film.
The internet helped because it was nice reference to tell people to check out if they wanted more information. Often people went to the site as I talked to them on the phone. The website also has various materials and downloads like screening guides for people who wanted to have screening parties. It also is a way for people to buy the film. Having a website also allows people to find my contact information and oddly enough, I have even received handwritten letters from people who had seen the film. Last week a library contacted me to see if it was okay to screen the film. (It’s really nice when people are respectful of copyright. And yes, it okay to screen it.) I created a facebook group as I was touring. It’s small, but it also helps to get the word out. (I’ve tried to update the site, but my personal site consistently says that the account is temporarily unavailable. Hmmmm.) I’m thankful for the internet, and to the many people who also helped to get the word out. It’s also somewhat odd that in pushing the film, more people find out about the film, and this gives it greater desireability. One film festival that rejected the film, called a year later to see if they could distribute it online. It’s odd, but true.
The process of distribution has already changed, and is continuing to shift. I recently talked to Aaron, of the popular online series: Chad Vader, Day Shift Manager. They have over 30 million views online. I felt really sort of traditional next to them. They have an interesting approach in that they sell merchandising and have created a huge audience online. (They also shoot in 16mm and live in and work with students from a college.) Their short films are really entertaining. Check them out.
I think the next documentary project I’d like to do will be online based - because of the interactive element that the internet is heading into. I would love to be able to integrate for audience participation and intereaction in a place where others can see and hear what the audience is thinking. Sure, there could be a DVD if there is still demand for it, but I think the bulk of the project could be online, involving a storyline, and a conglomeration of our photos and videos, as well as user generated content, that as a whole will contribute to the story. I’d also like to integrate a wiki to share information, as well as be an archive for future generations. With current hindsight, I realize this my website of Considering Democracy is static, the blog being the only interactive element. That may change later. Who knows?
Thanks for reading.
Topics: Philosophy, Screening Tour, DIY! | No Comments »
Doctors Want Single Payer Healthcare
By consider | September 21, 2009
Doctors, the good people who fix us when we’re hurt, want a single payer type system. It really makes a lot of sense, because doctors take a Hippocratic oath to do their best to help people. Yet the current system of U.S. healthcare does not allow this. They are taking a road tour across the U.S. and will be in Washington D.C. later this week.
They are articulate, smart, and they want to do their job, yet the current U.S. healthcare (rapid-insane-profit-before-people) system does not allow it. I’ve talked to doctors who have expressed outrage at the current system as one doctor said that he was bored as he didn’t have any patients and went into the waiting room and was astounded that it was filled with people, some of whom needed urgent care. So he spent the next 5 hours in the waiting room treating patients. He said that while it was rewarding - since people were really happy to get treated, he understood that the front desk operated as a gateway - by checking insurance and also slowed down the process (sometimes stoped) of getting health care to people that needed it.
From their website https://madashelldoctorstour.com
Mad as Hell
You CAN handle the Truth
“There’s no nice way to say it. The financial cost of health care is killing our citizens, hobbling our economy, crushing small business, and threatening the solvency of our government. In the meantime, the Health Care Industry is spending almost two million dollars a day lobbying Congress and manipulating public opinion to accept “reform” legislation that leaves a vicious, for-profit system intact. The “public option” is a trap. We need real reform that finds immediate savings, controls costs, and accomplishes the moral imperative of true Universal Access. A Single Payer plan is the only real path to a Health Care System that is socially, ethically and fiscally responsible. And yet, our elected officials refuse to even discuss the possibility of a Single Payer plan!
If that doesn’t make you mad, we recommend checking your pulse.”
Call your congress person, blog, talk to people, write the editor and stay healthy!
Topics: Healthcare | No Comments »
Healthcare Reality Check and Joe Biden
By consider | September 1, 2009
We as People do need to talk to others about the myths and flatout lies that are being disseminated. If big insurance wins, America will loose a lot in the coming difficult economic times. Check out this link.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/
Topics: Healthcare | No Comments »
Single Payer and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NYC)
By consider | August 22, 2009
Here is an interesting clip about Single Payer healthcare. A single payer system would be great! It would be really nice to join the other developed industrial democracies. Go Rep. Anthony Weiner! Thank you for taking a stand. You rock! (The federal government and local governments do a really good job at providing police services, 911 services, roads - they’re great. Medicare does a really good job at insuring the other folks. We should have a public plan to cover all Americans.)
We need a public plan in the United States. I would contribute to it, instead of my private health insurance. Private health insurance is really doing a lot of damage to the United States by putting illogical, selfish, dangerous, overly emotional aspects into the national dialog. It would leave the United States very vulnerable if we do not have a public healthcare system that does not cover everyone.
Topics: Healthcare | No Comments »