At least five members of the U.S. Supreme Court have left no doubt that they, despite their own frequent criticism of robed colleagues who would make laws rather than interpret them, are intent on doing that very thing.
Nearly two weeks ago, in a 5-4 decision, the high court gave its blessing to something both the left and right on the political spectrum have feared: carte blanche for big businesses and unions to funnel millions of dollars into congressional and presidential election campaigns.
The eventual outcome of this move should be crystal-clear, even to children in a sixth-grade civics class. Money does indeed talk, and those with plenty of it will now have voices capable of totally overriding what the rest of us have to say.
How could anyone claim this to be democracy in action? The founding fathers, who envisioned at least a semblance of representation for “regular Americans,” must be flipping frantically in their graves.
Certainly Theodore Roosevelt, so famed for his “trust-busting” efforts, would be appalled. It was he who said, during a State of the Union address: “All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders’ money for such purposes.”
Now, most of the checks and balances we’ve taken for granted have been tossed unceremoniously out the window. And this, by a court largely seated by presidents who railed relentlessly against “activist judges.” How much more “activist” can one get, than acting solely on the part of special interests rather than the general public?
Stalwarts in both the Republican and Democratic parties have swam for years against this tide of political spending. Remember the McCain-Feingold Act, which in part barred ads funded by unions and corporations in the 11th hour of election campaigns? It just went the way of the dodo, as did other provisions designed to create accountability and transparency.
As for Sen. John McCain himself, he declared disappointment with the decision, but seemed resigned to it – and to the fact that years of his efforts have been shot down. He all but conceded there’s nothing that can be done. After all, these “activist” justices will remain seated until they die or retire.
Perhaps we should take this one logical step further, and have the candidates bear the logos of those who “sponsor” them. It would be rather like Jeff Gordon racing a car with DuPont or Pepsi emblazoned upon the hood. Joe Blow can declare himself the “AFL-CIO candidate” with an appropriate stamp above the bill of his ballcap, while opponent Bob Smith waves a banner bearing the names of giants in the banking industry.
Chalk up another win for big money, and another loss for voters. And another piece of evidence that the Supreme Court – at least, in its present incarnation – doesn’t necessarily deserve the respect accorded it.
