If the reports are correct, then we're seeing President Obama's prediction come true, as well as the predictions of a number of other Washington insiders, who warned--giving First Amendment, free-speech rights to corporations will engender a strain on our democracy never before seen in this country, as corporate and foreign money is used to influence policies and elect candidates who can contribute, in some fashion, to their bottomline.When Obama sounded the alarm during one of his addresses to the American people, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito visibly shook his head--a serious breach of decorum. Alito had to know the can of worms that he and the court had opened. Yet, his shake of the head was a clear indication that he was deeply perturbed to have it brought to his attention in a forum that didn't allow him a rebuttal. If Alito could have looked ahead to the following article in the Christian Science Monitor, would he have ruled differently?
The focus of particular attention this week is the US Chamber of Commerce, a powerhouse in campaign financing with funds directed largely to the coffers of Republican candidates.
Liberal groups say the Chamber – which has budgeted $75 million to support its favorite candidates this year, almost exclusively Republicans – is using foreign money as part of its huge campaign war chest, which would be illegal. Chamber officials deny the charge.
But it's hard to know for sure, because under federal law the Chamber doesn't have to detail the sources of its campaign spending.
At the time of the Supreme Court decision, I wrote about this under the title, Whose Country Is It, Anyway?, and scolded Jonathan Turley, noted U.S. Constitution scholar, for praising the decision, seeing it as a victory for free speech. With this recent revelation, I wonder if Turley still believes that free speech was served as a result of the Supreme Court decision to extend a First Amendment right to corporations, effectively paving the way for an eventual corpocracy, if steps aren't taken by Congress to bring a halt to this corporate take over of our most precious freedom--to practice our democracy without undue influence either from within or without our country.Embattled Democratic candidates, the target of Chamber-funded campaign ads, are crying foul, some pointing to the need to revisit last January’s US Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, which makes it easier for corporations and labor unions to influence elections through campaign advertising.
Why must there be this supposed natural-enemy battle line drawn between labor and management? One of the reasons: Management has never been reluctant to put profits ahead of workers, treating them more as disposables than assets. Now that these multinational corporations have the workforce of countries like China, India, and others, from which to draw their labor, outsourcing of production is becoming more and more commonplace. So it follows that these multinational corporations, as well as government-backed foreign corporations, will do whatever is necessary to influence outcomes favorable to them.
And if that means backing "free-market" forces within our country with money--which is mostly synonymous with Republicans, their more likely targets--so be it. We have Tea Party Goers chafing at the idea of socialism, but backing a "free market" ideology which is nothing more than an "outsourcing" of American jobs. How long will it take them to recognize the real enemy to our democracy, our economy, and the continued growth of our middle class?
What we're seeing is an assault upon our democratic process--Supreme Court decisions that favor corporations, and government entities (think the recent eminent domain ruling), lobbyists paying out record sums of moneys to buy off legislators, and now, insult upon insult, foreign money pouring into our elections--so much so that what we now have is not an actual democracy, but a democracy in name only.
Multinational corporations will fly the flag of any country that will give them the most bang for their buck, whether it's China's cheap labor practices--demanding from some of its workforce 35-hour shifts at 31 cents an hour to make an American corporation's products to be sold back to us--or India's cheap labor practices.
Not only can't American workers compete in this global marketplace, they're virtually at a disadvantage--one of the reasons why we're hearing such terms as "economic patriotism" being thrown about these days. Unions, and out-of-work Americans, are often seen as the problem, with the results that they're viciously attacked from some quarters. What these workers need, instead, is more time to retool, or, in some cases, extended unemployment insurance.
The irony: I'm told that many American jobs aren't being filled, because too many Americans don't have the requisite skills, training, or education to fill them. And these aren't a handful of jobs, but millions of them--enough to put quite a dent in our unemployment numbers.
