“Sometimes even the Supreme Court just gets it wrong.” That’s what I thought to myself last week when I heard the Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to use profits to directly influence political elections. The justification for the ruling has a few parts, which I’ll summarize here.
- Each individual citizen is guaranteed the right to freedom of speech.
- The use of money to influence political elections is a form of free speech that cannot be restricted.
- Corporations are collections of individuals, many of whom are citizens, and should therefore be accorded all the rights of an individual citizen.
My personal opinion is that the third assertion is a gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment and that the Court’s ruling will be destructive to democracy. I won’t waste time explaining why. If you disagree with me, you probably begin with a different collection of axiomatic principles. Instead, I want to look at one logical extension of the Court’s conclusion.
Can a corporation run for public office? No, not an individual associated with the corporation. I mean the corporation itself. Absolutely not, right? Just doesn’t make sense. Well, at least one corporation disagrees. Right here, in my hometown, Murray Hill Incorporated is planning to contest the seat of the 8th district of Maryland in the House of Representatives. You’re probably thinking, “That’s ridiculous, that will never fly.” While I happen to agree that it’s absurd, and so does Murray Hill Incorporated, five of the nine Supreme Court justices apparently do not. And by all indications, it will fly. After all, if a corporation is afforded all the rights of an individual citizen then it is afforded the right to run for public office. I can’t help but wonder what James Madison would think.
Common sense is all the rage nowadays. Common sense in health care. Common sense in economic policy. Common sense in national defense. Maybe it’s time we start applying a little common sense to the law. Otherwise, we might find ourselves living in the world’s first corporate plutocracy.
Word of the Day
iconoclast (i con o clast) [ayh-kon-uh-klast]
- (noun) a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for religious veneration.
- (noun) a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition.
Hmmmm…common sense, eh…????
Let’s apply some of that to your rather bizarre conclusion about corporations running for public office…???? I haven’t read the latest Supreme Court’s ruling, nor do I intend to do so, because the ruling had absolutely nothing to do with your supposition…but “common sense” (that much maligned, little exercised commodity that you’ve drug kickin’ & screamin’ into this dialogue) would tell you or anyone who chooses to exercise just a sprinkle of it that there is a very distinct difference in individuals vs. corporations…you should try a little of it…you might find it….enlightening…!!!
This narrative has been offered with no presumption of merit or retort from the originator of the blog, nor does it warrant further verbal dialogue on Monday, Feb. 8th (or any other Monday for that matter)…!!!
JUST MY WAY OF “PULLIN’ YOUR CHAIN”…NO HARM INTENDED…!!!
Always the antagonist, Mr. Schaffer!