A recent poll by Hart Research found that 85 percent of Americans say corporations have too much influence on our democracy. Corporations hire armies of lobbyists and corporate representatives sit on so-called" independent" advisory committees that feed policy recommendations to government.
And, as we saw in November, corporations pour huge amounts of money into campaigns to support or oppose candidates of their choice. Democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people. We can't have a healthy functioning democracy with corporations given legal status equal to real people. It just doesn't work.
In the 2010 case known as Citizens United v. F.E.C. - the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want from their corporate coffers to influence election outcomes. The corporations say it's free speech, but there's nothing free about it. If corporations - say Exxon, which made $30 billion last year - spend even a tiny percentage of their profits on influencing election outcomes, they can dwarf the contributions from real live citizens (that's you and me), skewing election results to favor their own interests. Which, let's face it, aren't always the same as the interests of workers, families and the environment.
The Story of Citizens United v. FEC (2011)
We can't solve today's pressing environmental, economic and social problems without a healthy functioning democracy. Which is why we need to band together to do two things: get the corporations out of our democracy and get the people back in.
One way to put the brakes on the excessive influence of corporations on our democracy is to undo the disastrous Citizens United decision. And the most lasting, meaningful way to do that is with a constitutional amendment. It's a tall order, but many organizations are launching campaigns for one. An amendment needs to confirm that the free speech protections in the First Amendment don't extend to for-profit corporations.
A constitutional amendment won't solve all the problems with corporate influence of our democracy, but it is a great place to start. If the Citizens United decision stands unchallenged, elections will be no more than auctions, with political offices available to the highest bidder, and unavailable to those who prioritize public - rather than corporate - interests.
Regardless of whether you're passionate about health care or the climate, product safety or workers' rights, this is your issue too. Corporate influence is in the way of our achieving a healthier, more secure, more fair society.
So let's defend our democracy by putting it to use right now.
Use the above link to join a campaign to get corporations out of politics.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
10 comments:
The New York Times is a for-profit corporation. Does anyone think the government should tell the New York Times it can't editorialize in favor of, or against, candidates?
Free speech is not the same as using a for-profit public corporation's revenue, without the approval of its owners, to support a candidate's campaign.
Does the New York Times get approval from people who own its stock, before the newspaper endorses a candidate in an editorial? I doubt it.
Editorials and campaign finance are two not the same. We seem to be on different pages of this problem.
Editorials are published by profit-making corporations. And it costs money to write them, print them, and distribute them. So if people don't believe for-profit corporations should be allowed to spend money disseminating opinions about candidates, it seems those people want to give government the power to end most newspapers, and other types of media.
Your Free Speech is not in question. I am talking about campaign financing by corporation, profit or non-profit. They are not PEOPLE.
But CUIP is a corporation. Do you think the government should be able to prevent CUIP from spending money on a communication about a candidate?
I agree with your free speech issue. I am against corporations sending money to candidates campaigns. For public companies, I think the stock holders should have a say on how their profits are spent.
It is still illegal for corporations to send money to the campaign of any candidate for federal office. Citizens United did not disturb that law. It merely said corporations could disseminate information; it didn't say they can contribute to anyone's campaign.
Thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment