Today, I managed to infect the pages of the Daily News with my ideas.
Here's a sample:
The case before the court arises from the distribution before the 2008 primary season of the film "Hillary: The Movie." Citizens United, creator of the film, sought to enjoin the enforcement of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, one of several statutes that prevent the use of corporate funds to influence a federal election. Led by Republican appointees, the Supreme Court may very well strike down the law, including the corporate restriction.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and the other Republican appointees are proponents of originalism. They argue that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. But the Founders did not vest corporations with rights under the Constitution. Therein lies the hypocrisy of conservative judicial ideology.
The drafters of the Constitution perceived the unchecked power of corporations to be a danger to American democracy. Expressing his strong distrust of corporate power, Thomas Jefferson stated his hope to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Sharing Jefferson's disdain, James Madison described corporations as "at best a necessary evil only."
To read the full Op-Ed, buy a copy of the Daily News.
For more of my thoughts, click read more.
I wrote this Op-Ed almost a month back. I thought it would be neat to try to get it published today, the day the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case. Considering the constitutional implications, I was and remain awed by how little coverage this case had garnered. Since then, my Google Alert for "'Citizens United' 'Supreme Court'" has steadily picked up steam as the commentariat has gained awareness of the implications of the Court's potential decision.
For example, E.J. Dionne wrote a great piece the other day for the Washington Post. In it, he writes:
"Judged by the standard of an event's potential long-term impact on our public life, the most important will be the argument before the Supreme Court (on the same day, as it happens) about a case that, if decided wrongly, could surrender control of our democracy to corporate interests. This sounds melodramatic. It's not."
In addition to recent coverage in the press, I also began wading through the substantial amount of amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in connection with the case to see what fancy pants lawyers have to say about the matter.
Having written a couple amicus briefs, I've formed somewhat of an opinion on their merit. They're just yet another platform for lawyers to engage in one of their favorite pastimes, the comparison their dick sizes. In less prosaic terms, they have no merit.
That being said, let's proceed to my favorite of the various briefs - the amicus submitted by the Cato Institute.
And by "favorite," I mean to express my raging cynicism for the entire process.
To submit an amicus, the party is supposed to have some special interest in the outcome of the case that affords the party a perspective that the Court could benefit hearing from. This rule is never enforced. As a result, the whole amicus thing has devolved into the exercise I've already described.
Following convention, the lawyers still like to make up some interest to justify their submission of an amicus. Cato's lawyers, a few stiffs from Patton Boggs, describe their client's interest as follows:
"The Cato Institute was established in 1977 as a nonpartisan public policy research foundation dedicated to advancing principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government… This case is of central concern to Cato because it addresses the further collapse of constitutional protections for political speech and activity, which lies at the very heart of the First Amendment." [Emphasis Added]
To sum up my reaction to this nonsense, *cough*.
In support of their client's desire to create corporate rights by judicial fiat, the lawyers from Patton Boggs never address the distinction between corporations and individuals. They simply assume without citation that corporations are entitled to the same rights as people. As if when writing the First Amendment, Jefferson
When addressing whether government has a compelling interest in regulating corporate speech, the hacks argue as if the danger to American democracy posed by unfettered corporate speech is some new fangled nonsense dreamt up by some West Village pinko-liberal fascists.
And by "liberal fascists," I fully intended to ascribe the logical inconsistency of this phrase to the argument evidenced by the drafters of Cato's amicus.
These lawyers are not just engaging in revisionist history; they're demonstrating their patent ignorance of it. American leaders have been warning against the evils of corporations since the inception of this Republic.
As I wrote in my Op-Ed, "The drafters of the Constitution perceived the unchecked power of corporations to be a danger to American democracy. Expressing his strong distrust of corporate power, Thomas Jefferson stated his hope to 'crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations.' Sharing Jefferson's disdain, James Madison described corporations as 'at best a necessary evil only.'"
And it's not as if the fear of corporate influence was just a peccadillo of the founding fathers.
In his 1905 State of the Union address, Theodore Roosevelt stated:
"The fortunes amassed through corporate organization are now so large, and vest such power in those that wield them, as to make it a matter of necessity to give to the sovereign—that is, to the Government, which represents the people as a wholesome effective power of supervision over their corporate use."
Roosevelt, like Jefferson, is kinda a big deal. You'd think that having your face carved into the side of a friggin mountain would cause folks to afford some weight to your words. Apparently, not so at Patton Boggs or the Cato Institute.
The Cato Institute describes itself as "a foundation dedicated to advancing principles of individual liberty." Yet, they've gone out and hired a bunch of hacks to write a laughable brief in support of an argument that will do more to undermine individual liberty than any terrorist in Afghanistan. Already, the size and wealth of corporations dwarf the ability of individuals to influence their elected representatives. If Cato has its way, individual rights will be further undermined.
The fact that the Cato Institute's amicus brief even passes the red-faced test can only be understood by juxtaposing it with the horrid state of the American educational system. More significantly, the fact that the Supreme Court is even considering its arguments demonstrates how little our country currently resembles Abraham Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people."