We Are All Suckers Now

I just had to laugh upon reading Paul Soglin's the-sky-is-falling reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United v. FED. He wrote: …the fanatical right wing U.S. Court majority tore up the Constitution and legislated from the bench." The ruling has "plunged our nation into political chaos".

Zoinks! You'd think that McCain-Feingold was our last desperate bulwark against the influx of corporate money into our political system, which as we all know, has been free of corporate greenbacks for centuries.

Soglin continues:

As any school child knows, the freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded theater intending to create a panic or disturbance. Two mobsters cannot discuss the execution of their boss and get away with it, even if they do not kill him. And you cannot go up to a stranger in a convincing manner and threaten to punch out his lights.

The implications here are: 1) that political speech paid for by corporations is equivalent to threats and discussion of murder and 2) that, any abrogation of free speech by Congress is automagically Constitutionally sound. Firstly, if you think an ad for a particular candidate is the same as trying to incite a riot or threaten physical violence, then you need your head examined. Exactly how are they the same? Well, Soglin doesn't bother to say, presumably because this would expose some kind of derangement which equates threats and violence to political speech. Secondly, sure, freedom of speech is not absolute, but this generalization doesn't mean Congress can limit freedom of speech as it pleases nor does it shed any light on the case at hand. The issue isn't whether freedom of speech is absolute, the issue is whether specific laws were unconstitutional or not.

More:

For over a century, from state houses to the U.S. Congress, there were laws limiting contributions to political campaigns, particularly by corporations.

Pretty slick, eh? Nice job of changing the subject there, Mr. Soglin. Citizens United v. FEC wasn't about donating money to political campaigns. From the SCOTUS blog linked to above:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the government may not keep corporations (and probably, as Lyle reasons in his post yesterday, labor unions) from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While the business entities may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast. (Emphasis mine.)

Glenn Greenwald's reaction to the case was much more level-headed and he addressed the argument that precedents were overturned:

Then there's the always intellectually confused discussions of stare decisis and precedent. It's absolutely true that the Citizens United majority cavalierly tossed aside decades of judicial opinions upholding the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions. But what does that prove? Several of the liberals' most cherished Supreme Court decisions did the same (Brown v. Bd. of Education rejected Plessy v. Ferguson; Lawrence v. Texas overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, etc.).

I don't know for certain, but I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that Soglin didn't think Brown v. Board of Education was a most heinous example of legislating from the bench. Legislating is only an egregious offense for Soglin when he personally disagrees with the outcome.

Another Madisonian, Gregory Humphrey, also takes a myopic view of the ruling.

The idea advanced by Republicans that this ruling bolsters the First Amendment is cock-eyed. (Shocking!!) Who will be the victor when large and uncontrolled corporate concerns start to thrash around the airwaves with ad after ad while the average voice of the citizen is muted?

Again, nothing about the text of the decision, only that he doesn't like the results. Greenwald addresses this in another blog post:

When a court invalidates Law X or Government Action Y on constitutional grounds, it's always so striking how one's views about the validity of the court's ruling track one's beliefs about the desirability of Law X/Action Y on policy grounds (e.g., "I like Law X and disagree with the Court's ruling declaring Law X unconstitutional" or "I dislike Law X and agree with the Court's striking down Law X").

It's critical always to note that these are two entirely distinct questions: (1) is Law X/Government Action Y a good thing?, and (2) is Law X/Government Action Y Constitutional?

He also notes that it isn't simply Republicans who see political speech by corporations as being free speech, as Humphrey would have you believe, but Democrats do as well.

Humphrey's sarcasm is very disappointing and, to me, that he takes his own freedom of speech for granted. That it's never been threatened has lead to complacency. Freedom of speech, if I may paraphrase Noam Chomsky, is for the speech you don't like. It is something you should be happy to extend to others and not something the expansion of which you should reflexively deride. Perhaps if Humphrey spent a sabbatical somewhere else where there was no freedom of speech and people who, say, advocated for gay marriage could be whisked off the street never to be seen again, he might think twice about casually viewing the expansion of freedom of speech as something only to be celebrated by evil people like Republicans.

Humphrey is also wrong in asserting elsewhere that "newspapers are front line in democracy". The front line in a democracy is an electorate that doesn't have its collective head up its collective ass. Corporate political speech wouldn't be a large issue if voters responded critically to political speech generally and demanded that candidates do more than wrap themselves in the flag and spout meaningless slogans such as "Yes we can!" In 2004, many progressives demanded nothing more from a Democratic candidate for President other than not being George Bush. In 2008 a blatantly centrist candidate named Barack Obama was hailed by lefties as the second coming of Christ. Instead of looking at his platform, many simply heard the word "change" and drooled like a Pavlovian dog.

I'm not exactly thrilled at the idea of corporate money in our electoral process. Greg Palast worries:

Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."

I share his concern but I can't help but worry that fears of corporations funding more Swift Boat ads is also an indictment of we the people for being suckers.