U.S. Supreme Ct. Says Corporations Can Buy Elections. Think I’m Kidding...?

Dear Neighbors,

         Yesterday the United States Supreme Court did something so big that it even took that couple who broke into the White House party – and that 3D movie with the blue people - off the news radar.  For at least a minute.  Given the importance of this ruling, I thought I’d dash you off a quick “Special Alert” newsletter. 

         Though beware.  I’m hopped up on lots of coffee this morning.  And I think the decision reeks.  That is to say – I have an opinion on this one.  I think the four Democratic and Republican Court appointees who rightly dissented from this Court decision tried to protect you. 

         Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the few remaining moderates on the Court (who dissented from his Republican brethren), warned in a passionate dissent that the ruling not only threatens democracy but “will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” One editorial noted that “History is, indeed, likely to look harshly not only on the decision but the court that delivered it.”  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?hp.

         If you thought the fight over who should be placed on the Supreme Court was only about abortion and social issues, you missed a bigger motive for some of the federal politicians who’ve pushed to appoint these guys.  Many partisan federal politicians have wanted to increase the influence of big corporations over your government.  Yesterday they won.  Yesterday they gave Exxon about $85 billion more in power than they left for you.  

         OK, exaggeration alert.  Technically, the five most radical members of the Supreme Court didn’t actually give away your political system to the biggest corporations in the world.  They only gave them an option to buy it.  And, really, with a paltry $85 billion in profits between 2007-2008, would a company like Exxon ever seek to use their money to influence your political system?  Here’s what you missed if you were sane enough to skip the headlines and only read the comics yesterday. 

         The national ban, and Alaska’s ban, on large corporate contributions to influence elections were reversed yesterday by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito, all appointees of Presidents Bush and Reagan.  It’s rare for a Supreme Court to reverse their own precedent, but that’s what they did. 

         We’ll have to wait to see what the ramifications will be.  Lots of bright minds across the country are reading the opinion now.  But here’s what we know for sure. 

         Corporations can now spend as much as they want during an election, against a candidate they don’t want, or for one that they do want.  No state can maintain its prohibition against TV, radio and written ads that a corporation pays for.  Under the guise of giving corporations “equal” footing with you and me to “participate” in the political system, the Supreme Court gave them as much power as they can buy.  Assuming you can’t personally put $10,000, $100,000, or $10 million  into a political campaign, they said you lose.  You get less right to influence your government than Exxon does.  Corporations still can’t donate money directly to a candidate.  But how much does that matter if they can take out $1 million in ads against a good candidate, for a bad one?

         The opinion is, in my humble view as a former Assistant Attorney General, an embarrassment.  It grants the same power to unions as well.  While I strongly support the right to organize a union, I like keeping a lid on money in politics.  Alaska’s ban and the federal McCain-Feingold ban on corporate contributions are now gone.  States and Congress will now have to re-write their laws.  And the new laws will have to allow Exxon, and every corporation, and other organization  in the nation, to spend as much as they want on attack ads, misleading ads, and ads that benefit their interests over yours.

         Here’s a press release a few of us issued yesterday. 

         OK.  The coffee’s about to wear off.  And I’m now calm enough to say (phew) – I hope all’s well and, as usual, let us know if we can help in any way.

         Best regards,

JUNEAU – Five Democrats in the Alaska State Legislature today decried the US Supreme Court decision that strikes down laws that banned corporations from using their own money to support or oppose candidates for public office. The decision will allow large corporations to use their profits to buy political campaign ads.

The five conservative justices who made up the majority in the 5-4 decision said long-standing bans against corporate political ads created an unconstitutional restraint of free speech.  Sen. Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage), Reps Les Gara and Max Gruenberg (both D-Anchorage) and Reps Scott Kawasaki and David Guttenberg (both D-Fairbanks) say the opposite is true, and that the court’s decision shifts First Amendment protections from individual Americans to Corporations.

“Today Corporate America took the First Amendment from Americans,” Gara said. “ It’s why corporate executives put so much money into past presidential campaigns – to successfully take over the Supreme Court,” Gara is a former Alaska Assistant Attorney General.

“This decision allows the sound of shuffling dollars to drown out the voices of American voters, and establishes a precedent for government to the highest bidder,” Guttenberg said.

In his dissent Justice John Paul Stevens, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

“After years of undue influence over policy, I am concerned that now big oil and corporations will have free reign over the election process and be on equal footing with the average Alaskan,” Kawasaki said.

In a strong statement issued shortly after the decision President Barack Obama said, “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Not only will this allow large multi-nationals to pour money into US elections, but it will increase their ability to wield political clout, holding policymakers hostage for fear of losing corporate advertising support and influence.

“This decision is a slap in the face to Alaskans and our attempts to keep big money out of politics,” Wielechowski said. “The Supreme Court has put out the welcome mat for influence peddling of the worst kind.”

The decision may threaten similar state bans on corporate involvement in Alaska elections, and the five Democrats are planning specific actions to protect Alaskan voters from unwelcome corporate meddling.

###