Just what we need, an increase in the ability of corporations to exert political influence…
If a legislator votes for health care reform, to limit greenhouse gases, to impose tough regulations on banks, etc., there is nothing to stop corporations from using their billions in profits to target that individual with a blitzkrieg of negative ads. Legislators from small districts cannot match the resources that corporations have at their disposal, and even legislators from large districts would be quite vulnerable. As Andrew Leonard notes: […]
…now the Supreme Court has handed Wall Street a huge club with which to thwack Obama or any other politician who dares to try to restrain the likes of JPMorgan and Goldman-Sachs. And you can bet they won’t be shy to use it.
If we going to allow corporations to participate in this way, we also need accountability. It’s bad enough to have a tilted playing field in favor of corporations when they are playing fair, but when they are allowed to make false charges against candidates or about issues and not be held accountable, that’s a big problem.
Chris Hayes sums up the political ramifications via Twitter:
I propose a bet: $500 to Partners in Health to any libertarian takers. Tot. corporate IE’s in 2010 cycle for R’s will exceed those for D’s.
And, of course, there’s the issue that policies favored by Democrats will become even more watered down by corporations. Not a good day for the democratic process…
Update: I enjoy Ezra’s headline about this decision: “Goldman/Exxon 2012”
He also point to a tweet by Brian Beutler: “appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy,” says SCOTUS…b4 bursting into laughter.