The Supreme Court plans to revisit earlier decisions that have established some limits on corporate political contributions and publicity. Conservative Justices have initiated this effort even without a case currently before them, so there is little doubt that they hope to roll back those limits and provide corporations a broader scope for political activity.
I believe that goes in the wrong direction. The Justices suggest they want to correct possibly erroneous decisions, but in fact they would be perpetuating one.
Incorporated entities include General Motors or General Dynamics, but as George Will points out in cheerleading today for Roberts, also the NRA and the Sierra Club. The huge amount of money they can bring to bear in a campaign for an issue or a candidate too easily drowns out real democracy, which is (or should be) focused on people. The entire historical development of the Bill of Rights was to protect the individual citizen; those first ten amendments to the Constitution refer repeatedly to "the people." Yet it's impractical and illogical to consider corporations as representing either their stockholders or their employees, since the positions they take inevitably will not be shared by all stockholders or employees.
The "corporation" is a legal construct designed to facilitate trade and legal matters involving businesses. It need not have any "rights" except those we choose to give it. So I like Justice Ginsberg's reported remark that a corporation is not "endowed by its creator with inalienable rights." Over many years, courts have unfortunately lost sight of that basic fact, and have treated corporate entities as if they were people. That's why we have these complicated legal proceedings and arguments about how, when, and how much corporations' supposed "rights" may be limited. The way to avoid them is to get back to fundamentals: A corporation is not a person.
If the conservative justices' motive in revisiting this issue now is legal, rather than political, they surely will embrace this interpretation as consistent with the language of the Constitution, and the intent of the framers.
For more on this topic from Morning Fog, click here.
Comments