Thursday, January 21, 2010

Supreme Court Ruling January 21, 2010.

The Supreme Court of the United States today just changed the playing field of American politics for the foreseeable future with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Now corporations can spend as much money as they want in persuading members of congress or the administration to fulfill their needs. Already the major corporations EACH have 100 senators and 435 members of the U.S. House to represent THEM. Those 535 officials are theirs to contact and provide with money, prizes, meals, women, psychologically effective advertisements, even threats and demands (see http://theprettypenny.blogspot.com/2009/07/nra-and-sotomayor.html). You and I have two senators and one representative. I don't know how much money you have, but I can't compete with General Electric say, or Microsoft or Walmart or MacDonalds, much less ALL of them.

So now we are in competition in the selection process of our elected representatives, with the companies that have sold us cars that get 12 MPG, cigarettes, food that has led to a malnourished and sick nation, a "health-care" system that ranks 37th in the world (according to the World Health Organization) and costs two to three times the cost of developed nations, and are heavily invested in armament, bombs, land mines, and other weapons of war. Many of these corporations have substantial investors from foreign countries.

This also means that from now on every election in the United States, even one for the representative Butte County, South Dakota say (the geographical center of the country) will ring with international significance instead of the issues important to just those voters. Not only that but the money the corporations will be using to "influence" congress will be OUR money too. So we still have to pay taxes, then pay the corporations, plus pay our own special lobbies, whether they be Move On, NAACP, AARP or the NRA, and we have very little choice whether to pay any of them or not.

What can we do? Until and unless the corporations can be barred from any contributions to elections, there is no way. Some countries forbid these types of contributions and the entire cost of all elections are borne by the government and regulated and enforced with jail terms for infringement. That would mean a tax increase but would probably result in more money for the taxpayers.

No comments: