THE "OLIGARCHS UNITED" SCOTUS RULING

The Roberts Court will be known as the Robbers Court

Today's Supreme Court decision, once again, favors money over ideas in what drives public debate. The Roberts Court seems determined to undo all the reforms put in place in the wake of the corruption exposed in the Watergate scandal. What we have here is another long step towards oligarchy. Some have noted that this, combined with the Citizens United ruling, is a one-two punch in the gut of our democracy. So, in honor of that, let's call this the Oligarchs United ruling.

Shaun McCutcheon, the Alabama businessman who brought the case along with the Republican National Committee says his aim was to realize his conservative values. “To me, being a conservative means smaller government and more freedom,” he said. But is that what happens when government fails to do the things needed to ensure our freedoms? Who steps in when one person's freedom interferes with another's? Specifically, what happens when one person's freedom of speech silences another's? What is the price paid when good, public-spirited ideas are shouted out by mean-spirited, selfish spin?

One reason we will tolerate today's ruling is because most people have no idea how peculiar our campaign finance system is compared to other functioning democracies. Pride and patriotism feeds this, since many insist that our system is beyond compare. The reality is that our privately-funded elections aren't the only way to go. But to suggest that we look at others and learn from their best practices gets howls from some quarters. By the same token, other democracies can hardly believe what we are willing to accept.

Back in 1996, I interviewed Ken Silverstein who had just published a book with Alexander Coburn called Washington Babylon. Silverstein detailed the various improprieties apparently inherent to our privatized political system. The detail that sticks in my mind all these years later is the reaction from the publisher when they submitted the manuscript. The first person to read it at Verso, a U.K. publishing house, refused to believe it. That our politicians are dependent on deep-pocketed donors to get elected seemed unreal. Silverstein and Coburn had to take the publisher by the hand and guide them deep into the rabbit hole to understand our peculiar way of doing things.

For Chief Justice Roberts, the only legit reason for the government to get involved in the electioneering enterprise is to stop outright payola or the appearance of such corruption. But to those not numbed by our pay-for-play system of legitimized bribery, the whole thing looks corrupt. Exactly why do very wealthy, self-interested players give a lot of money to political causes and campaigns? Are they selfless and public-spirited, or do they seek a return from these investments? Our oligarchs are too sophisticated to engage in the “quid pro quo corruption” that Roberts says is a legitimate interest for government intervention. So they're forced to accomplish the same ends by more circuitous means. What his court accomplished here is to simplify the process.

***

Today's ruling was about individuals, not corporations. Previously, the notorious Citizens United ruling granted corporations the same First Amendment protections as people. That was - and is - laughable. So, here's a laugh - a parody of a political ad I wrote and produced awhile back. It's for a fictitious political group, "We the People for Corporate Influence"

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com