|
Friday, January 22, 2010 The United States of Corporate America: From Democracy to
Plutocracy
"The
price of apathy towards
public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Plato, ancient Greek philosopher ...“The
20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political
importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the
growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power
against democracy.” Alex Carey, Australian social scientist “The
most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from
the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly
castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.” Noam Chomsky, M.I.T. emeritus Professor of Linguistics On Tuesday, January 19 (2010), the
Obama administration got a kick in the pants from the Massachusetts voters
when they filled former Senator Ted Kennedy's seat by electing a conservative
Republican candidate. The essence of their message was: stop dithering and
start governing; stop trying to satisfy the bankers and please the anonymous
editors of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, and start caring for the
ordinary people. Two days later, President Barack Obama seemed to have understood the
people's message when he announced a “Volcker rule” that will
forbid large banks from owning hedge funds that make money by placing large
bets against their own clients, using information that these same clients
gave them. It was about time. Such a policy should have been announced months
ago, if not years ago. On the same day, however, a nonelected body, the U.S. Supreme Court,
threw a different challenge to the Obama administration. Indeed, on Thursday January
21 (2010), a Republican-appointed majority on the U.S.
Supreme Court took it upon itself to profoundly change the U.S.
Constitution and American democracy. Indeed, in what can be labeled a most
reactionary decision, the Roberts
U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that legal entities, such as corporations and labor
unions, have the same purely personal rights to free speech as living
individuals. Indeed, the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says “Congress shall make no law ... abridging
the freedom of speech. The only problem with such a wide interpretation of the U.S. Bills of
Rights (N.B.: The first ten amendments
to the United
States Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights) is that this
runs contrary to its letter and its spirit, since it clearly states later on
that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and
reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry
or States.” The words
“people” and “citizenry” clearly refer here to living
human beings, not to legal or artificial entities such as business
corporations, labor unions, financial organizations or political lobbies. Such entities, for example, cannot vote in an election. Indeed, laws
governing voting rights in the United States clearly establish that only
“Adult citizens
of the United States who are residents of one of the 50 states have the right to
participate fully in the political
system of the United States”. No mention is made of
corporations or other legal entities. However, with its January 21 (2010) decision, the majority on the
Roberts U.S. Supreme Court is saying in effect that even if artificial
entities cannot vote in an election, they can spend as much money as they
like to influence the outcome of an election. Money is speech for them, and
the more a legal entity has of it, the more it has a right to become powerful
politically and control the political agenda. In fact, what Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative Supreme
Court majority have done is to overcome a century-old democratic tradition in
the United States in granting a constitutional right to business corporations
and to banks, (because they are really the ones with a lot of money), to use
their enormous resources to not only participate in debates about public
issues, but also, and above all, to de facto dictate the election of
candidates of their choice to public office. That's plutocracy, not democracy! Plutocracy is defined as a political system
characterized by “the rule by the wealthy, or power provided by
wealth.” Democracy, on the other hand, is defined as
a political system where political power belongs to the people. This means “a
political government either
carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by
means of elected representatives of the people (representative
democracy). The terms "the power to the people" are derived from the
words "people" and "power" in Greek. This fundamental idea of democracy was well summarized by President
Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Gettysburg Address, when he said that it is “a
government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This is a definition
that is based on the basic democratic principle of equality among human beings. But now, the Roberts Court's decision must have made President
Lincoln turn in his grave, because that decision, in effect, transfers
political power from the living “people” to artificial corporate entities,
with tons of money to spend. If Congress does not act quickly to reverse this
decision, legal entities will be able to spend freely in the media to support
or oppose political candidates for president and Congress, and this, as far
as the last moment of a political campaign. This is quite something! By a stroke of the pen, the Roberts Court has thus abolished the laws
governing American electoral financing and removed limits to how much special
money interests can spend to have the elected officials they want. The
government they want will largely be “a government of the
corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.” Truly amazing! To reflect the new political philosophy of the five-member majority
of the Roberts Court, the Preambule of
the U.S. Constitution that says “We the People of the United
States, in order to form a more perfect Union...” should, maybe, more
appropriately be changed for “We, the business corporations of
America...” It is that much more ironic that the word
“corporation” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in the
Bill of Rights. It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the
Constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they
drafted the Bill of Rights. But the Roberts Court majority does not seem to
agree with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Mason...etc. Because of
their decision, the five conservative members of the U. S. Supreme Court of
today have become the new Fathers of the U. S. Constitution. For nearly a century, it has been assumed that the
U.S. Bill of Rights protected persons, not corporations. Even if sometimes
the courts have extended the rights of the 14th Amendment banning
the deprivation of property without due process or equal protection of the
law to the property of corporations, it was never thought that the purely
personal rights of the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights applied to
corporate entities as well as to human beings. This is understandable.
Business corporations
are created through legislation that gives them potentially perpetual life
and limited liability to enhance their efficiency as economic entities. While
such characteristics can be beneficial in the economic sphere, they represent
special dangers in the political sphere. That is the rationale for not
extending constitutional rights to purely legal entities. But now, the
five-member majority of the Roberts Court have said that such legalized
artificial entities have the same constitutionally protected rights to engage
in political activities as living individuals. In conclusion, let us reiterate that in a
democracy—and as it is clearly established also in the U.S. Bill of
Rights and in all democratic constitutions—the citizens are the only
legitimate source of law. It follows inexorably that corporations, not being
citizens, cannot be legitimate political actors. Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative Supreme
Court majority have thus badly erred in their anti-democratic judgment. Their judgment is clearly revolutionary or, more
precisely, counter-revolutionary. Rodrigue Tremblay is
professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be
reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author
of the coming book "The Code for Global Ethics"
at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/
You can reserve a copy of
the book on Amazon
*****The French version of the book is now available.
See: www.lecodepouruneethiqueglobale.com/ or on Amazon. Register to be alerted when the English
version is available by sending the word “Code” to bigpictureworld@yahoo.com Please visit the book site at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/ _____________________________________ Posted, Friday, January 22, 2010, at 5:30 am Email to a friend: http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/tremblay=1121 or, http://www.thecodeforglobalethics.com/pb/wp_26f7a0c1/wp_26f7a0c1.html Send contact, comments or commercial reproduction
requests (in English or in French) to: N.B.: Messages
may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise. Please register to receive free alerts on new
postings of articles. Send an email with the word "subscribe"
to: bigpictureworld@yahoo.com To unregister, send an email with the word "unsubscribe"
to: bigpictureworld@yahoo.com The
above is presented for educational purposes only. © 2009
by Big Picture World Syndicate, Inc. |