"Money is the mother's milk of politics."
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, and then vote against them, you have no business being up here." Jesse Unruh
The difference between free speech and bribery ought to be obvious to everyone, though five-ninths of the Supreme Court seems a trifle confused. As a result of the Court's "Citizens' United" decision, our country is flooded by political money (much of it secret) which we all know is expected to buy elections. Though we try to control it, propaganda is quite effective at controlling populations, and nobody knows this better than advertisers and the corporations that employ them. Dictatorships of the past tried to eliminate public information that ran country to their creeds. Now the ones in control need only bury any opposition with overwhelming volume and output.
If a citizen donates a small amount to a political candidate, he does so because he wants to elect a candidate whose viewpoint and governing philosophy generally agree with his own. If a citizen donates a large amount, he is expecting from that politician special considerations which will benefit him financially. The exact amount that differentiates between a small, helpful donation, and one which will directly net financial rewards, varies, depending on individual politicians. But in the case of really large donations, the meaning is obvious. For over a century now, some citizens have sought to control or eliminate these huge donations. But now the Supreme Court tells us this is unconstitutional, that corporations are human and money is the same as free speech. And now, to no one's surprise, political spending, especially on the corporate side, has grown like an invasive plant.
Very wealthy individuals, and the corporations they control, can afford large political donations. To a billionaire, hundreds of thousands or even millions in campaign contributions cause less hardship than ten or twenty dollars would for average working stiffs. To them, these are investments, and the system is rigged so they always get them back. If their candidate wins, their investment realizes a quick return. If they lose, recovery takes a little longer. But economics in the U.S.A. always benefits the wealthy, and always has. Even in the depths of the New Deal, the rich made out quite well. They were made to share, but workers started buying things the rich were selling again, so they did just fine. Greed knows no limits, however, and those who succumb to its allure must have it all. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the greedy are in a better position to get it than they have been since the late nineteenth century.
Of course, it can be said that politicians could accept large donations and still vote their consciences, after Unruh's admonitions quoted above. But based on Unruh's benchmarks, quite a few politicians are in the wrong trade. And in modern times, we are no longer dealing in wine, women, and song. The offers from corporate coffers are measured in enough money to swing most elections. Political survival depends on keeping people in the boardrooms happy. A politician will fit the bill, or the moneyed interests will find someone who can.
Bribery by any other name still stinks. And the brand unleashed by the Supreme Court has already raised a foul reek, toxic to the concept of government by people. Should there be another way to spin this rank situation, it might be worth the amusement to hear it. The supporters of corporate bribery say anyone can play the game, provided they have the money. It just happens that only big business has that kind of money, and big businessmen have exhibited no interest in sharing. We have reached that Orwellian state whence all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Corporations, owning and totally consuming the media, will dominate politics without opposition, and corporate interests will run government for their sole benefit. This is the quintessence of fascism, as supported by the Supreme Court.
Perhaps the proposed constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people will be passed. It is making headway, and most Americans support it. But in a corporate state, things people want are of less than minimal importance. As time goes by and the burial of all media in corporate money re-iterates the party line again and again, Americans will hear less and less of opposition. For this reason, the election of 2012 is incredibly important. The republic, which our founders warned us we must work to keep, is under direct and severe threat. About half the voters (usually, about half the people who could vote do) believe a strong corporate state is a good idea. Those who disagree need to make every effort to restore a healthy republic. Should the corporate elite, the one percent, consolidate power, those who honestly believe in government by the people will be in a terrible position. America is at a place where two roads diverge. The one we choose will make all the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment