Perhaps you are so embroiled in the uproar over Republican lack of decorum during the President’s health care address to a Joint Session of Congress that you missed that the Supreme Court looks to be on the edge of opening the floodgates of Corporate “speech” in the electoral process (here, here, and here as well).
the U.S. Supreme Court is threatening to strike down key provisions of the 2002 “McCain-Feingold” bipartisan campaign finance reform act, overruling two of its prior rulings in the process and uprooting a century-old principle – existent in American law since Teddy Roosevelt’s Administration – that corporations should be barred from making unlimited expenditures in elections.
Wait, what? What did I just say? Corporations might soon be able to make unlimited expenditures in elections? Can they do that?
The answer is yes, if the Supreme Court says they can.
Clearly this has environmental and energy implications. We have seen how West Virginia’s unlimited contributions rules have led to ‘buying’ of judicial decisions. What might the impact to the prospects for sensible energy policy if Exxon-Mobil, Peabody Energy, or the Southern Company could use their huge cash reserves to drown out the political dialogue with advertising campaigns for (or against) a specific candidate. Already, their huge campaigns (laundered through Astroturf organizations like ACCCE and the Americans For (less) Prosperity (AFP) distort the political conversation and process. Where would eliminating even what some see as a fig leaf of constraints lead us?
Not to worry, it seems, since Corporations only want to share knowledge with us, provide wisdom and understanding to enable better decision-making on the part of the voter.
Don’t worry, be happy has to be the conclusion about unleashing Corporate funds during election cycles reading Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments (see transcript) during oral arguments yesterday:
Addressing Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Kennedy said:
Corporations have lots of knowledge about [the] environment… and you are silencing them during the election. (52:7)
Later, addressing Seth Waxman (who was arguing on behalf of John McCain and Russ Feingold (see McCain-Feingold statement yesterday), to uphold McCain-Feingold):
[T]he phenomenon of — of television ads where we get information about scientific discovery and — and environment and transportation issues from corporations who after all have patents because they know something, that — that is different [from campaign laws that have been around for 100 years, because the former is a new development]. (73:5)
How can this be read any other way that Kennedy somehow believes (okay, perhaps doesn’t believe but wants to sell the line) that corporations’ goal in elections is to somehow share their wealth of knowledge about “the environment” and “scientific discovery.”
Yes, all McDonalds wants to do is have an open and honest discussion of childhood obesity and the role that McNuggets might play in this epidemic.
Yes, all the tobacco industry wanted to do was share leading edge research on the impacts of tobacco on human health.
Yes, all the fossil fuel industry wants to do is engage in honest, fact-based, scientifically sound discussion of pollution and climate change.
Yes, Justice Kennedy, all these Corporations wish to do is provide real insights and understanding, to help us have the most enlightened political process in human history.
Yes, Justice Kennedy, if you really believe this, I have a bridge that I’m looking to sell. When should I come by?