We the "Corporations" of the United States of America

The preamble to the United States constitution opens with the following words - "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

These are extremely lofty and powerful words echoing loudly from the past through the present and into the distant future from our founding fathers We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect Union. "We the People" is the key operative phrase.

On Thursday, January 21, 2010, The "Conservative" United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling, overturned 35 years of  law and 70 years of practice  regarding campaign finance.

Now - corporations, unions and big businesses are able to spend UNLIMITED amounts of money for campaign ads for political candidates. This stunning ruling effectively turns the United Stated into a Corpocracy. In case you havent heard the term "Corpocracy" Wikipedia defines it as - "Corporatocracy or corpocracy is a form of government where corporations, conglomerates or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country. This is sometimes considered to be a form of fascism".

The ruling is based upon the basic principal of "free speech" rights of corporations. This ruling is insane on several levels. The founding fathers of the United States did not consider or could not have fathomed the concept of multi-national corporations and the ramifications of such large profit making entities. Corporations are NOT the people. Corporations can't serve in the military, serve on a jury, get a social security card or drive a car so how can their free speech rights be violated in an election? Corporations exist only for one reason and one reason only and thats to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with that. However, this raises significant issues as corporations are often at odds with the government and individuals in regards to regulations on how they conduct business.

Corporations are not "people", they are a separate entity comprised of employees with several different political beliefs e.g. - conservatives, liberals and moderates. There is no such thing as a litmus test for political beliefs to be part of the average corporation or big business. Individuals are still limited to a maximum of $2,300 maximum donation per candidate, per election cycle.

Democrats were outraged and dismayed by this decision, Republicans not so much. Historically, Republicans were always "perceived" to be more regulatory friendly to business vs. the Democrats who are "perceived" to be less friendly towards business interests. This popular belief is false on several levels. There has always been back door methods of support for specific candidates (Democratic and Republican) from various business/political entities, political action committees (PACS) and lobbiest groups in an attempt to make a particular candidate beholden to them because of their support. The only candidates somewhat immune from this influence are self made millionaire candidates who basically self fund their campaigns with their own money. However, these individuals are few and far between. We need to realize that this model basically eliminates the common person from the running because of lack of funds to finance campaign ads to get their message out to the people.

President Barack Obama basically ran a campaign financed not from special interest groups or lobbiests but from small donations from millions of individual small donors. I believe that this model is not only fair but obviously workable. However, even this model with millions of individual donors could not stand up the financial ability of a mega corporation. This is where the problem lies. What if a large corporation spends millions of dollars on a particular candidate in the form of campaign ads and the candidate wins the election? What happens if this corporate candidate suddenly chooses not to play ball? Obviously the corporate sponser would spend just as much during the next election cycle to have said candidate removed and back someone else.

I am perfectly willing to argue my point and political beliefs with anybody - Right Wing Conservatives, Republicans, Independents, Democrats etc. With enough  like minded individuals (THE PEOPLE) agreeing on one particular political candidate, we win. If we lose in two, four or six years we can try again. May the best man or woman win. However, my individual maximum $2,300.00 donation can't compete with large corporations, who I believe are not "The People" but something more.

Republicans (mostly)  by  not speaking up are making a serious mistake. Democrats and Republicans are not that far apart when it comes to regulation of American Business. This ruling opens the door for solid financial  and single issue support for third party candidates beholden only to special interests. Our two party system is bad enough, but adding others into the mix will be a disaster. It's obvious that two parties can't agree, can you imaging 3, 4 or more parties? then we would have shifting coalitions and alliances for any particular issue or agenda.

This is a fundamental issue of rights as individuals (The People) and certainly not a free speech issue. As I stated in the beginning of this piece the preamble to the United States Constitution begins with "We the People"  and NOT "We the Corporations" of the United States. Corporations exist with certain regulations to protect "The People". However, corporations are NOT "The People". Let's face it corporations could not exist without the people. As the people, we deserve certain safeguards and protections so corporate interests don't infringe upon our individual or national interests. There is no reason to go into the abuses and excesses that American corporations have perpetrated on the public over the years, as these are widely publicized and documented.

If we are to be perfectly honest with ourselves it is obvious that the publicly financed campaign mechanism was broken, but at least it was on the right track to be repaired. This newest Supreme Court ruling creates chaos that will be nearly impossible to repair without a constitutional amendment which is difficult at best.

 "We the people" have now been taken out of the equation. This is not a Liberal issue or Conservative issue, thus is not a Democrat or Republican issue, this is an issue that concerns us all as "The People".

This is truly a sad day in America.

Regards,

Tom