Supreme Court rolls back Democracy

I don't think I can put it any better than this open letter my brother wrote to our activist, Conservative Supreme Court........

Chief Justice Roberts

In light of the recent ruling with regards to Campaign Financing,  and as an extremely concerned American Citizen, I would respectfully like to have the following presented to the Court for consideration.

It is clear that this activist ruling has abandoned all hope of a fair impartial Court and has rather split it into a Partisan battlefield.  This is a disservice to the people of the United States of America and the democratic process we all hold so dear.

I would ask the following of the majority:

Does a Corporation receive an election ballot?  Is a Corporation on the voter registration? Can a Corporation be called for Jury Duty?

How then, can we consider a Corporation to be an INDIVIDUAL with freedom of Speech relating to electioneering and political INFLUENCE?   Indeed, a Corporation is guilty of massive SUPRESSION of speech!  It is made up of hundreds of individual employees.  Are we going to take a poll of all those employees and place financial influence where the MAJORITY chooses it to go? After all, would that not be the "DEMOCRATIC" way?!  Hardly!

The influence will go where only the MINORITY Board of Directors and owners (who often are not even American Citizens and have no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to be influencing our political system,) choose it to go...most likely in direct opposition to the will of the MAJORITY!  This is HARDLY DEMOCRACY!

Let us not forget that DEMOCRACY comes from the Greek, "Demos" the PEOPLE. Last time I checked, we're not living in a CORPOCRACY!  I urge the Court to reverse its dangerous decision which has put us on the slippery slope to a systematic demolition of our democratic process!

David Shaughnessy



Only connect, my friends! 
Cheers, 
Charles Shaughnessy

Comments

  1. Charlie--I don't deal with change easily--I hope this change becomes simpler to accept as time passes-

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not a matter of voting rights; it's an issue of free speech. Even the ACLU supports this decision (and they are not exactly known for supporting big business over the common man). This case dealt with a non-profit corporation (Citizens United) and its right to distribute a film that attacked one of the Democratic candidates for president in 2008. I wonder if you would hold the same views if the issue considered by the Court related to the distribution of a film that attacked a Republican candidate. If you read Justice Kennedy's opinion, the ruling also applies to non-profit advocacy groups and labor unions, and not just corporations.
    By the way, we're a republic, and we have a republican form of government (note the small "r")--the Founding Fathers did not create a democracy; they created a republic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charlie, I am in TOTAL agreement with your brother on the corporatocracy issue. This same sentiment is being expressed on websites and blogs, by people of every political persuasion. But...the problem isn't "Activist judges"(trust me, we feel the same way about Sotomayor) nor is it even this particular ruling. It's easy to be angry because "those judges that Bush appointed" voted for this. The problem is that these judges upheld rulings that were made by previous Supreme Courts. In 1886(!!!), the SCOTUS ruled that corporations pay taxes, own property and can be sued...and therefore are considered a "person" by the legal definition. That ruling has been on the books for 125 years! Then, in 1976, a different SCOTUS ruled that "money" was a form of free speech. News flash: Bush wasn't around then.
    All this ruling is doing, technically, is bringing to light the back room deals that have already been going on. It's not like the Republicans were being bought by the corporations, and the poor impoverished Democrats were struggling for every dime while they refused to participate in such things. Corporations STILL donated..they hid behind 501 groups, PACs, and big $$ people who own multiple corporations would donate multiple times. The Unions have been doing EXACTLY as the corporations have(refer to exemption from Cadillac insurance tax), while suppressing the voice of the members who don't agree. We also have a media that is owned by corporations who have an agenda that surpasses "honest, unbiased reporting".
    This ruling was "correct" if you look at past rulings and judge it against those. It's the ORIGINAL rulings that may be the problem, but the way it's being presented, you'd think those 5 judges just decided last Thursday that corporations were a person and money is speech. Not true.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts