Supreme Court on Free Speech (Updated)

It's becoming clearer now that there are essentially three political realities--Beltway corporate insiders, a broad swath of educated people who care about the public interest, and the populist right.  Any hope for the country lies with the middle group, but the people in it are not well-organized nor are they well funded.  That's always been true relative to the power and funding of corporations.  Today it just got worse for them. The supreme court ruling today, ostensibly in the name of free speech, is just another milestone for the corporate insiders and their agenda to consolidate the enormous power they already possess.

I just read the story and haven't read any commentary on this yet, so maybe someone can talk me down, or maybe I'll get some perspective on this when the dust settles, but this ruling at first glance seems to be so insanely un-democratic, so egregiously unbalancing, that it's really kind of awesome in its crudeness and cynicism.  This decision is near as corrupting and consequential as was Dred Scott--like Scott it is a cynical defense of the liberty and rights of the already powerful that disregards precedent and dramatically diminishes the rights and liberties of everyone else.

OK, Dred Scott was more consequential, but I exaggerate to make a point: this is a great day for those who desire the kind of authoritarian capitalism toward which we are moving--if we're not there already.  It's a great day for those who think equality is bunk, and social and economic stratification are our most desirable future.

When are we going to hear some good news for a change?

Comments

[Patrick]

Corporate personhood is a damned lie.

[Jack Whelan]

Indeed. It has always struck me as nuts.

Does anybody know if this corporations are persons idea is accepted in Europe? I know there was some late 19th century supreme court case in the U.S. that set the precedent that corporations are persons--but I'm curious to know if this is peculiarly American or whether it's legally accepted in other countries.

[Geraldo]

If corporations are people then why can't they be sent to jail?

[Patrick]

Or even pay personal income tax (i.e. not corporate tax rates)?

As someone who thinks Olbermann has been rather silly for a little while, I think he was right on last night. This thing is a travesty. Apparently this Enlightenment edifice has a lot further to fall before we can rebuild. Looks like we'll be wading through the ashes of modernity for the rest of our lifetimes.

Don't get me wrong; we should still sew seeds and excavate some important artifacts to be examined by posterity, but we probably won't even see the base of the mountain, let alone the mountain-top.

Autocratic Capitalism, here we come. At least the movies will look really cool...and the prescription drugs will be amazing.

[Batocchio]

I think Geraldo wins the thread.

[pantherq]

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R. was the case where corporate personhood was snuck into the case. It was a comment by one of the judges that was put into the record after the fact by a court clerk. It was never a decision but has been used as such ever since.

[Jack]

@pantherq--Thanks. I remember now hearing once about that remarkable bit about the clerk adding the comment into the record.