Freedom?

I just caught the last few minutes of a conversation, on the (rebroadcast) February 5th edition of PBS' Bill Moyers' Journal, between Harvard University's Progressive legal scholar, Lawrence Lessig, and Libertarian journalist Nick Gillespie, who used to edit the Libertarian magazine, Reason.

The topic was the decision two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the essence of which is that corporations are no longer barred from making donations of money to American political parties, issue-specific propositions on a ballot, or to individual politicians.

This decision struck down a major section of the 2002 McCain-Feingold (Yes; that McCain) campaign-finance reform law. The Supremes, in a 5-4 Decision along ideological lines (Roberts, Alitio, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy the Spolier on the Right: Ruth Bader Ginzburg, John Paul Stevens, Steven Breyer, and Antonia Sotomayor for the People), found for the Plaintiffs that McCain-Feingold violated the free-speech right of corporations to engage in public debate of political issues.

Essentially, the finding means that corporations are no different than individuals when it comes to free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It says that money is equated with speech -- and if Exxon, for example, wants to spend millions of dollars in "issue ads" against a politician (even a local one) who believes in restricting oil exploration in their area... now, nothing prevents them.

The effect of this decision can be a huge and destabilizing one for politics in America. It negates laws in 24 states which forbid corporate spending in state and local elections. And, it does nothing for people, for citizens; it's a decision which only benefits large businesses.

And, it may not end there. That decision, that a corporation has the same rights as an individual, even in the context of free speech, can be a precedent that opens the door for other rights a corporate entity might claim -- privacy, due process... Citizens United v. FEC has just opened the doors to many other legal challenges.

In speaking with Bill Moyers, Harvard's Lawrence Lessig noted that over the past twenty years, there has been a steady erosion of trust in politics generally, but in the U.S. Congress, specifically. In the public mind, the implication is that Federal politicians are more likely to be corrupt.

Lessig indicated that there's more than enough evidence to support that contention -- lobbyists are the prime Players of Washington, D.C., and money does in fact rule the roost. Congressmen and Senators are frequently bought for cheap; the most recent example involves Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader. It seems that he's received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from BAE, a British weapons manufacturer, currently plea-bargaining in multiple bribery investigations.

McConnell, whom the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) indicates is one of the most corrupt Republican politicians, rose in the Senate to speak in support of the Supreme Court's decision; corporations should be allowed to donate as much money as they want to politicians' campaigns, McConnell said. At the same time, he had authored 'earmarks' (riders to legislation, frequently establishing Federal funding for contracts or initiatives) which directly benefit BAE, which operates a facility in McConnell's state of Kentucky.

BAE stands to make millions of dollars as a result; they apparently bought McConnell's help in getting that by giving his campaign for re-election approximately $40,000. It reminded me of the old joke, attributed to Winston Churchill: "We've already determined what you are; now we're just haggling over the price".

And, the idea of McConnell as a whore is exactly the point of Lessig's observation. His comments about an erosion of trust in government was followed by Libertarian Nick Gillespie, who agreed with Lessig that money swaying the votes of politicians against the public's interest is bad -- but, Gillespie agrees only insofar as that supports his arguments in favor of smaller government and a reduction in the power of the Feds to determine how the United States is operated.

Gillespie, and Lessig, both noted that there is plenty of popular discontent with the Federal Government. The rise of Progressive Democrats (such as Lessig) on one side, and the Teabaggers on the other, they said, proves it. I agree with them.

The GOP is perfectly happy to push the idea that Federal politicians and our central government is corrupt and bloated. They've already painted themselves as the party of Populism, and the Democratic party as fringe Socialists and Communists.

However, since getting into bed with the Xtian Right in the early 1980's, the 'Reagan' Republicans and 'Bush-Sr.' Republicans (even the Cheney, New-American-Century foreign-policy hawk Repubs) have been made very uncomfortable. Having a voice and power in the party is now more a matter of ideological Purity on a narrow range of social issues than it ever has been.


Teabaggers: The Future Of America

The Teabaggers are a collection of Second-Amendment supporters, anti-abortion and Rightist Xtians; Libertarians and supply-siders; opportunists like Palin and Bachmann, and opportunistic pitchmen like Limbaugh and O'Reilly. The 'regular' Republicans (for whom politics is more a game or an occupation) believe they can use them, but don't take them seriously. Unfortunately for the GOP, the Teabaggers believe (like their Muslim soul-mates) in the purity of their beliefs.

And, like the mob in Paris during the French revolution, whose demands for vengeance pushed the Revolution's leaders further and further to one end of the political spectrum, the Teabaggers threaten to push the GOP ever further to the Right. This is the threat groups like the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, and Focus On The Family have raised with the GOP for twenty years: You bring about the social change we demand, or you don't get our organizational help, our money, or our votes.

My concern is this: If the Democrats can't deliver on promises of Hope, Bread and Work -- if they can't fix the problems created by the Repubs and Lil' Boots, and allow the GOP to paint them as ineffectual and corrupt and Radical Leftists... then the Teabagger fringe may end up seizing the Populist banner, claiming it for their own, and the GOP (still trying to ride the tiger) will have to follow their lead in an attempt to retain control of their party -- meaning their own personal power and interests.

At that point, a Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann as Republican candidate for President might not be a fringe notion any longer, not with freely-spent corporate backing. Corporations pay for play; they back whomever will allow them the freest hand in operating their businesses -- lowered clean air and water standards; reversing such things as the Family Leave Act or not raising the Minimum Wage. And, if a Sarah Palin looks like they might just win...


If Fascism ever comes to America, it won't be called Fascism.
It'd be called 'Americanism'. -- Huey Long, 1932

And should someone like Palin enter the office, it will mean the end of the United States of America as anyone now living knows it. It'll make the Lil' Boots Bush years look like a Kiwanis luncheon. Corporations would happily donate to her campaign; they don't care about social legislation -- Gosh, that doesn't have anything to do with business; does it?

Some might say, well; that's what happens in a pluralistic society, if people vote for the kind of change someone like Palin represents. I say, madness is sometimes brought about only through the feverish plans of a minority -- and by the apathy, or the fears, of everyone else, who don't understand what they've allowed to occur until it's too late.

That's my concern.