Citizens Untied

The "Citizens United" decision rendered by the Supreme Court has already created havoc.  The idea that a corporation is an individual and can behave as an individual is, of course, based upon a truly partisan reading of the Constitution.  The origin of the idea of incorporation was, in fact, an acknowledgment that a firm is made up of many individuals, and that not all of these individuals should be held liable for the bad acts of some.  All incorporation does is to limit the liability of a firm for damages to the coffers of the firm itself.  The individuals who run, or work for the firm are not personally liable for damages caused by the firm unless it can be shown that their bad acts alone caused the damages.

Throughout the history of nations, entities of commerce and trade have sought political advantage.  Companies have competed to be the sole purveyors to the Crown in monarchies.  They have fought to be sole purveyors to the governments of the countries in which they existed.  They have sought lower taxes and fees for themselves, and lower interest rates from the central banks and from local governments.  They have sought to avoid regulation and inspection by government agencies and they have argued against all manner of environmental protection.

The desire of large firms to have more political power is nothing new, but this decision has handed them greater power than they have ever had.  This decision is also embedded in the new tradition, started in the Reagan White House, of elevation financiers to true insider status.  While it is true that the "Robber Barons" of the late nineteenth century had nearly this kind of power, they had it without the complete impramatur of the government.  In fact, their outrageous behavior engendered anti-trust legislation.  Today, the financial services firms' bad behavior has been rewarded with bailouts and new legal power.  This is wrong, we know, but what can be done??

Remedies Anyone?

The first remedy is obvious.  There must be enough push-back from the voting public to scare members of Congress into passing legislation which will reverse the decision, or render it null and void.  The Occupy Movement must regain its steam, with a focus on this action, to get the attention of Congress.  This decision has been such a boon to many of them that little, short of the real threat being voted out, would cause them to want to undo it.  The sad thing seems to be that the Occupy Movement seems to have ebbed, and that is a difficult problem for such an unfocused and leaderless movement.  If Congress could be scared enough, this would be the quickest and easiest solution.  There may be some other ways to approach the undoing of "Citizens United," however.

Campaign Reform - Yes

One of the reasons why the unlimited spending power of corporations is so important to candidates is that campaigns now cost far too much.  Political campaigning has created a whole new industry.  Political advertising is a special new branch of marketing.  The use of media is becoming more sophisticated and more expensive with every passing political season.  Social media, while less expensive, has given rise to a new breed of "experts," who charge large sums for doing what teen agers do all the time for free.

I would suggest that we create a comprehensive campaign reform bill which sets definite (and short) time limits on political campaigns, which limits the amount of money that can be spent by any candidate in any race, which, perhaps, makes the funding for campaigns public, and which limits the negative nature of so much of today's campaigning.  I know that this would be controversial and time-consuming, but it might remove the reasons for the power of unlimited spending.  I believe that all candidates in any race should have equal funds and that all should have equal opportunity to address the voting public.

Such a bill would, again, need massive public support.  I think we should "occupy" this.

What about the courts???

If Joe decides to rob a bank and his stomach becomes upset as he plans the heist, could we say that his stomach didn't want to do the robbery?  It seems to me that we could, but we can't consider Joe's stomach to be not a part of him because, as an individual, all of Joe's organs are part of Joe.  So, if Joe pulls off his robbery and gets caught and convicted, his tummy is going to the slammer with him.

Now, if a corporation is an individual, would not all the people who work for it, from the CEO to the gardener, be organs of that individual?  Would there be a District Attorney courageous enough to make that argument when a corporation has clearly broken the law?  Shouldn't ALL of the organs of the corporation go to jail along with it?  If the courts say, "no," then how can the "Citizens United" decision stand?  Clearly, not all of the people who work for the firm want their money spent on the candidates to whom the officers of the firm give money.  Clearly, the political connections of the managers may give some of the employees an upset stomach.  How can we say that a corporation is an individual if its organs aren't all part of it before the law.

SO, the next time we see a clear case of corporate wrong-doing, I believe prosecutors should raise the issue.  Whatever penalty is meted out to the firm ought to be suffered by even the lowliest member.  Remember Joe.  His toenail on his little toe is doing time with him because he's an individual.

Perhaps one, or all of these remedies will untie us from the bonds of this terrible decision and the conditions which have already arisen from it.