A skeptical take on the campaign. by Van Bryant, II
(libertarian)
Friday, February 3, 2012
Launched last month by nonpartisan advocacy group Common Cause, "Amend 2012" is a campaign to overturn the "Citizens United" case via constitutional amendment.
Background: The Citizens United case (or "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" of 2010) was a ruling by the Supreme Court that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals, including the right to spend money on candidates in elections.
Amend 2012 contends that "only people are people," and that if action is not taken, corporations will soon own the government. Taken from their website:
"What's the big deal? Corporations already use their money to make many decisions that affect us every day, so why do we care if they use their money in political campaigns? Because there's no place for purchasing in democracy. Elected officials get their jobs from the people who elect them, and should ultimately answer to those people, too."[link]
Amend2012 doesn't explain to us exactly how corporate decisions impact us every day; neither does it clarify if these decisions are a net benefit or detriment to our lives. It is being assumed that the interests of all corporations, when applied to politics are a priori opposed to theindividual the people.
"There's a big difference between buying land to build a new warehouse and buying favors from the people who are supposed to represent us, the people."
First off, who is "us, the people?" When did I sign on to be a member of this group? Why am I expected to go along with these statements? Why is buying land, building warehouses considered activity separate from "us, the people?" Why is donating to the candidacy of a "representing person" conflated with "buying favors?"
Second, this statement is blatant demagoguery, because there is no fundamental difference in either expense; both are speculative in nature. Investing in a political campaign does not guarantee the candidate's success or the candidate's support of your agenda when elected; the investment could be a bust.
The implications of this campaign are frightening to me. If, for instance, "the people" are allowed to donate to campaigns that support taxing the corporations and spreading the wealth around, why should "the unpeople" of corporations be denied the opportunity to similarly influence campaigns for their own selfish reasons? If corporations are not allowed to impact elections, do they have any political rights in our democratic society? If not, why should we expect private corporations to operate in the country at all?
The fact there is absolutely no reference to "the individual" on this website has it's own share of negative connotations.
I am agnostic when it comes to corporations and political pressure groups who participate in acts of bribery and graft. It is merely the symptom of the problem: a State that engenders such progressive tyranny in the first place. It would be more useful to focus on the country's inherently-corrupt democratic system that bears responsibility for a degenerating bourgeois and proletariat, and not simply choose between corporate oligarchy or Reichian communism.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Van Bryant, II only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Van Bryant, II 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.
