Progressive Ponderings: Absolute Power
by Joe Mayer
In 1887, British historian and moralist Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
I couldn’t but think of Lord Acton’s wisdom as our own Supreme Court rained (or reigned) down its latest creation on us merely ordinary citizens. We should not be surprised. This same body of absolutes chose to crown George Bush nine years ago.
Keep in mind that members appointed to the Supreme Court are almost always white men of wealth and power. In 1857, these men, in the Dred Scott decision, defied the Deity, and decided that part of his creation did not measure up to the court’s standards. To correct God’s work they proclaimed. “African Americans are not citizens, but property protected by the Constitution.” This decision resulted in civil war.
Since that war the powerful wealthy court set about once again improving on God’s creation. First the states birthed corporations to which the courts gave legal status. Gradually the Court stated that corporations were legal “persons,” entitling them to First Amendment rights such as free speech. The next step really challenged God’s shortsightedness; in this leap to mythology the court decided that money was speech. Now this latest decision, based on the court’s previous rulings and not on the Constitution, declares that the people’s elected representatives cannot limit corporate personhood by restricting corporate/wealth/power’s “money speech.”
In the span of approximately one hundred fifty years our Supreme Court, playing God, went from denying personhood to part of the human race to granting personhood to a creation of its own. THAT’S ABSOLUTE POWER.
Now it is up to us citizens to protest the court’s equating a thing, an object, a creation of wealth with our own God-given humanity.
Democrats should view this as a campaign gift. Every candidate, at every level, for every office should be required to state his or her position on this issue of corporate personhood. Those politicians favoring the court’s decision (yes, there are many already in the clutches of corporate “persons”) should be forced to explain: (1) How this ruling advances the principle of people rule, i.e., “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” (2) How “profit only” motivated institutions will advance our human and social values such as love, hope, empathy, community, (3) How this new “person” creation is in harmony with our human creation stories.
Our democracy has already been wounded by the previous court rulings. This could be the death blow.
In 1887, British historian and moralist Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
I couldn’t but think of Lord Acton’s wisdom as our own Supreme Court rained (or reigned) down its latest creation on us merely ordinary citizens. We should not be surprised. This same body of absolutes chose to crown George Bush nine years ago.
Keep in mind that members appointed to the Supreme Court are almost always white men of wealth and power. In 1857, these men, in the Dred Scott decision, defied the Deity, and decided that part of his creation did not measure up to the court’s standards. To correct God’s work they proclaimed. “African Americans are not citizens, but property protected by the Constitution.” This decision resulted in civil war.
Since that war the powerful wealthy court set about once again improving on God’s creation. First the states birthed corporations to which the courts gave legal status. Gradually the Court stated that corporations were legal “persons,” entitling them to First Amendment rights such as free speech. The next step really challenged God’s shortsightedness; in this leap to mythology the court decided that money was speech. Now this latest decision, based on the court’s previous rulings and not on the Constitution, declares that the people’s elected representatives cannot limit corporate personhood by restricting corporate/wealth/power’s “money speech.”
In the span of approximately one hundred fifty years our Supreme Court, playing God, went from denying personhood to part of the human race to granting personhood to a creation of its own. THAT’S ABSOLUTE POWER.
Now it is up to us citizens to protest the court’s equating a thing, an object, a creation of wealth with our own God-given humanity.
Democrats should view this as a campaign gift. Every candidate, at every level, for every office should be required to state his or her position on this issue of corporate personhood. Those politicians favoring the court’s decision (yes, there are many already in the clutches of corporate “persons”) should be forced to explain: (1) How this ruling advances the principle of people rule, i.e., “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” (2) How “profit only” motivated institutions will advance our human and social values such as love, hope, empathy, community, (3) How this new “person” creation is in harmony with our human creation stories.
Our democracy has already been wounded by the previous court rulings. This could be the death blow.
Labels: Citizens United, Supreme Court
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Whenever the Lord Anton quote is cited, I am reminded of an equally relevant quote from author David Brin : “It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible.”
And so it is.
This ruling may have sparked anger yet haven’t corporations been funding lobbyists groups impacting our society … and those dollars work their way to think tanks that may be tax-exempt “educational” organizations … who will then pay for retreats for Congressmen and write op-eds … for example The Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, and contributions are tax-deductible for income taxes (federal tax identification number is 23-7327730).
In fact, if Citizens United had funded the movie through a PAC instead through it’s general funds, they wouldn’t have had a problem.
Here’s my thoughts.
#1. Put a surtax on any advertising over a certain amount (tell the truth would you care if the nightly news didn’t have so many pharmaceutical commercials … or the sporting event not have so many beer and car commercials.)
#2. Require corporations disclose … then let the buyer decide who they want to support.
#3. Require a shareholder vote to approve these disbursements (you’ve heard the commercial that your union dues cannot be used for political purposes without your consent.)
Post a Comment
<< Home