Sonia Sotomayor's views, thank heavens, chip away at the foundations of the corporate state we all now enjoy. The Wall Street Journal reports on her recent comments in the current case regarding corporate rights and political campaigns. If the corporate view prevails in that case, you can kiss the relevance of your political voice goodbye–if you don't know about the case, it's well worth your time to read about it. NPR recently put it in its proper terms: "The Supreme Court heard a second round of arguments Wednesday in a case that could transform American politics."
What it would transform it into is deeply unpleasant: an era of unlimited corporate involvement in campaigns. Basically, a complete nightmare of competing propaganda driven by profit-seeking, in which the best and best-funded ad department wins. And yes, we have that now, but the limits would be removed. And, surprising few, the conservatives on the court seem to be in favor of removing those limits. I fail to understand what's conservative about scuttling the traditional democratic process, but that's what's going on all the same.
Sotomayor, on the other hand, is voicing support for the status of people as people and corporations as what they really are: a legal entity undeserving of individual rights. From the WSJ:
In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.
During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.
But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong — and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.
Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with…[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."
This is a landmark case with tremendous ramifications. I don't know about you, but I don't want corporate PR departments any more involved in political campaigns than they already are (it's already terribly absurd).
ADDITIONAL:
And to think it's already this bad:
Before the financial crisis, BlackRock's chairman Laurence Fink would speak with federal officials at most a few times a month, for instance when they called him in New York for information about mortgage markets or pensions funds or other areas in which his company was active. But now, as the chief executive of the nation's largest asset manager, Fink says he talks to officials at least once a day. He plans to open an office in Washington by next year to influence policy and has hired the lobbying powerhouse of Quinn Gillespie & Associates.
…
"We are going to be spending more time inside the Beltway, either by helping the government or, if we are asked, shaping policy and decisions," Fink said.
I feel so much better now.
