Supreme Court’s Business Vote Uses Selective Logic

The Supreme Court decision this week changed the face of Federal election law, and was based on flawed logic. Even strict constructionist must recognize that the word “corporation” never appears in the Constitution (The word “business” does appear once in the Constitution but only in reference to procedures for doing the business of Congress.). And yet the Supreme Court this week has protected the First Amendment Rights of Corporations and have thus put our government and national security at risk.

If our Founding Fathers had wanted to give business the same rights and privileges as the country’s citizens then they would have given business the right to vote? In fact, according to Wikipedia as late the mid-1800s US business law favored protecting the public interest ahead of the rights of the corporate shareholders.

The funding of US elections is what’s wrong with our government. The competition for superior funding leads entices elected officials to give more access and more consideration to those who have funded their success. All elections should be publically funded.

Why isn’t paying a bribe to a public official just another form a free speech? How does that differ from what the Supreme Court has granted to Corporations?

While we only allow American citizens to vote for elected officials, we have no such citizen requirements to be a shareholder in a corporation. This decision is a victory for foreign governments and gives them a perfectly legal ability to influence our elections and thus our national security.

Mark my words. There will be a time when school children study the decision of January 21, 2010 and in the future history teachers will struggle to explain how the US Supreme Court could make such a misguided decision.

- Greg Harris

January 24, 2010