The Recent Midterm Elections and Corporate Contributions.
The Supreme Court has missed a simple correlation between the right to vote and the right to political contributions. by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
We have had one national midterm election since that infamous Supreme Court decision that decided that the "people" we know as corporations should be allowed full and complete financial access to the election process. The court is in recess as to whether the decision had a substantial impact on the election results, but the evidence seems to indicate in that direction.
The decision was framed as a grand struggle between privileged interests and the people and indeed it was. Conversely, it was raised as a choice between the freedom to spend our money [or a corporation's money] the way we choose against government intrusion into our finances. Of course, our finances in this case were the finance's of that fictionous corporate person the courts continue to define and figment into our everyday reality.
Surprisingly, the courts have yet to award corporations the right to vote. I am sure that will come soon, but until that day arrives, there is a correlation that we can draw from this lack of corporate suffrage.
Every individual in America has the right to vote. That right is based on the fact that individuals are people. People have the right to vote. Therefore, under the laws of our land, corporations either aren't people or are people and are being denied the right to vote.
Let's take some risk here and take some liberty with the logic of the courts and go with "corporations aren't people". If that is the case, what gives corporations or joint partnerships or for that matter any entity other than individuals the right to contribute financial aid to a campaign or to a political cause that may result in the election of a public official? Why do we award the right to financial aid the election of a public official to an entity that does not have the right to vote for that same official?
For no good reason. There is absolutely nothing in the original intent of our constitution or the bill of rights or the Articles that mentions that simply possessing capital allows whatever entity possessing capital to be permitted to contribute to the election of a public official.
If we wish in theory that government should have a limited role which should not include the economic sphere, then we should also wish that the political sphere, which is determined by election, should not be intruded upon by the economic sphere. Any mixing of the two is a mixing of one with the other. We must insist upon separation of corporate or business capital and the political state.
The right to vote would seem to allude to the right of a "person", not a group, not an association, not a corporation, to financially contribute to the election of a public official. The right to associate does not include the right to associate and compound capital in the marketplace with the intent of electing those who would make it much easier in the future to compound more capital. If this were indeed the case, why not imitate what the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve already routinely do, allow business interests to directly run the show.
The right to capital itself is not the right to dominate the election process. But, will limiting the right to contribute to campaigns solely to the individual thwart the power of capital in the election process? After all, quite a few individuals possess personal capital in amounts that would surely influence elections.
Not really, but it will help with damage control. The actions of a politician beholden to individual special interests are much more obvious than the actions of a politician beholden to corporate interests. While many elected officials have been brought down by directing public funds to individuals, few have faced the fire after directing public funds to corporate interests, though this is far more commonplace. The money trail is much easier to follow when it goes directly to an individual, just ask Chuckey Rangel.
Personal contributions are also expensive. A corporation can donate tens of millions and barely alter the bottom line while even the richest individual will fell the pinch when signing a million dollar check.
And, there is no reason that a political contribution should be tax deductible. Any tax break for contributions is a government subsidy toward the politician's campaign chest. Government certainly should make no political contributions and a tax deduction is exactly that.
We the people vote, not we the corporation. We the people should have the right to contribute to a politician of our choice. We the corporation should keep our non person nose where it belongs, in the economic sphere.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
