Hood Today

For anyone who's had the same creeping sense of dread about corporate power in America that I've had, your worst fears have been realized.

On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot ban corporate spending in elections.

The 5-4 decision has lifted restrictions on corporations' spending on political campaigns, obliterating the deteriorating wall between special interests and politics. There is now nothing stopping corporations from giving unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, allowing corporations to determine elections and effectively run the country.

As one New York Times editorial put it, the court's ruling "has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century."

Corporations have been banned from contributing to political campaigns since 1907, when Congress enacted a law prohibiting corporate donations to candidates. That decision was enforced throughout the 20th century and remained intact until last Thursday.

But now, according to the court's conservative majority, corporations are entitled to the same rights as American citizens. Employing our conveniently nonspecific Constitution, the majority said that to restrict corporations' ability to distribute money was equivalent to restraining free speech and was therefore a violation of the First Amendment.

To me, this broad interpretation of the First Amendment is a frightening example of what happens when such a vaguely written document is applied to reality - virtually anything can be justified. The idea that corporations are legally regarded as citizens is almost chilling.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't personally have billions of dollars to ensure that my favorite candidate wins. I also don't have political or economic agendas for which I'll spend any amount of money and ruin any amount of lives to accomplish. The enormously wealthy companies that already have a dangerous amount of power now possess a direct influence on elections, rendering democracy in America a distant abstraction.

In my opinion, this is a disastrous ruling that no one, liberal or conservative, could possibly support. Although it's true that corporations tend to favor conservative candidates, I can't imagine that any American would happily concede his or her vote in the face of corporate power. The right to vote in our leaders is the essence of our country, and it is now virtually nonexistent.

I distinctly remember the moment I received my absentee ballot for the 2008 presidential election in the mail. I tore the envelope open with a thrilling sense of power and proceeded to delicately lay each piece of paper on the table in front of me, cherishing every second of my first voting experience.

However, as I filled out the ballot, my excitement began to dwindle. Writing in my preferred candidate took all of ten seconds, and by the time I sealed the envelope and put it in the mail, the rush of the experience had fizzled out to disappointment. That was it? I suddenly felt very doubtful that the piece of paper I had just written on would have any discernible effect on who became president. The enormity of our political system - lobbyists, super delegates, etc. - suggested to me that, in the end, my vote might be insignificant.

But now, I no longer need to worry about that possibility. Thanks to the Supreme Court, it has become fact.

Article Tools