editorial: supreme court decision undermines democracy
i had to write an op-ed for my public policy class and i wrote mine in opposition of the recent supreme court ruling giving corporations more power in politics. leave comments!
Voting: the constitutional right of the American citizen to have a voice in shaping their country. This right was not given to many of us; civil rights leaders and activists had to fight for it through blood, sweat, and tears. Yet now in the 21st century, the Supreme Court is allowing corporations to drown our voices out.
On January 21st, the Supreme Court overrode preceding court cases limiting corporations' influence on campaigns-now the most powerful and wealthiest corporations can contribute as much as they please in support or opposition of candidates, as long as they don't do so through direct monetary contributions. The debate stems from the argument that because corporations are legally recognized as persons, they're entitled to the First Amendment. Yet, corporations have pockets exponentially deeper than the average American and lets not forget-they're immortal! This Supreme Court case essentially guarantees that the candidate backed by corporations will win. In campaigns, funding is the key to winning; the more funding a candidate has, the more accessible they are to the general public. With more access to the public, such as through television advertisements, comes more ability to sway votes in their favor, especially those of the uneducated who are less likely to seek counterarguments lead by critics and opposing candidates. The ruling is an especially hard blow to supporters of third parties, like me, whose tireless efforts to raise money and spread the word of their candidate will become even more minuscule in comparison to the support of the two major parties backed by powerful corporations.
The supporters of the ruling, mostly conservatives, contend that the corporate financing of campaigns will reflect upon the preferences set by the market; if a consumer doesn't support the political position of one corporation, they will do business with another. Yet there are two major issues with this argument. Firstly, when consumers shop, they usually don't consider the repercussions of doing business; for example, a consumer who opposes unions may still shop at Safeway because they don't connect buying groceries there with supporting unions. The second major issue is that most corporations favor Republican candidates, thus in an industry dominated by only a few corporations, it may be impossible for a non-Republican to avoid doing business with a Republican-affiliated corporation because there are no alternatives.
Other critics who support the ruling argue that the the recent court case will have little impact considering that corporations already had a large impact on American presidential elections and politics in general. However, this argument is similar to arguing to take a step back and make a situation worse simply because the situation is bad already. If we were to follow this line of reasoning, what will become of the future of American politics? Perhaps the Supreme Court will give corporations the right to vote!
On a larger scale, the ruling isn't a Republican or Democratic issue; it's an issue that effects every American. By giving corporations this unprecedented level of power over politics, we are giving them the authority to undermine the notion of democracy set forth by our founding fathers. Even in 1860, Thomas Jefferson saw the negative effects of corporations--“I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” If our country continues in the direction that it's headed, our founding fathers won't only be rolling in their graves, they'll be breaking out of their coffins and raising hell.
Voting: the constitutional right of the American citizen to have a voice in shaping their country. This right was not given to many of us; civil rights leaders and activists had to fight for it through blood, sweat, and tears. Yet now in the 21st century, the Supreme Court is allowing corporations to drown our voices out.
On January 21st, the Supreme Court overrode preceding court cases limiting corporations' influence on campaigns-now the most powerful and wealthiest corporations can contribute as much as they please in support or opposition of candidates, as long as they don't do so through direct monetary contributions. The debate stems from the argument that because corporations are legally recognized as persons, they're entitled to the First Amendment. Yet, corporations have pockets exponentially deeper than the average American and lets not forget-they're immortal! This Supreme Court case essentially guarantees that the candidate backed by corporations will win. In campaigns, funding is the key to winning; the more funding a candidate has, the more accessible they are to the general public. With more access to the public, such as through television advertisements, comes more ability to sway votes in their favor, especially those of the uneducated who are less likely to seek counterarguments lead by critics and opposing candidates. The ruling is an especially hard blow to supporters of third parties, like me, whose tireless efforts to raise money and spread the word of their candidate will become even more minuscule in comparison to the support of the two major parties backed by powerful corporations.
The supporters of the ruling, mostly conservatives, contend that the corporate financing of campaigns will reflect upon the preferences set by the market; if a consumer doesn't support the political position of one corporation, they will do business with another. Yet there are two major issues with this argument. Firstly, when consumers shop, they usually don't consider the repercussions of doing business; for example, a consumer who opposes unions may still shop at Safeway because they don't connect buying groceries there with supporting unions. The second major issue is that most corporations favor Republican candidates, thus in an industry dominated by only a few corporations, it may be impossible for a non-Republican to avoid doing business with a Republican-affiliated corporation because there are no alternatives.
Other critics who support the ruling argue that the the recent court case will have little impact considering that corporations already had a large impact on American presidential elections and politics in general. However, this argument is similar to arguing to take a step back and make a situation worse simply because the situation is bad already. If we were to follow this line of reasoning, what will become of the future of American politics? Perhaps the Supreme Court will give corporations the right to vote!
On a larger scale, the ruling isn't a Republican or Democratic issue; it's an issue that effects every American. By giving corporations this unprecedented level of power over politics, we are giving them the authority to undermine the notion of democracy set forth by our founding fathers. Even in 1860, Thomas Jefferson saw the negative effects of corporations--“I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” If our country continues in the direction that it's headed, our founding fathers won't only be rolling in their graves, they'll be breaking out of their coffins and raising hell.