Corporations are People, too
post by Carl
Over at Red County, Bryan Myrick has decided to get all upset over something obviously true in the State of the Union.
Last week’s State of the Union was one to remember, although surely not for the reasons that its drafters intended.
Nah. Other than the 4 freedoms speech, State of the Union speeches are mostly forgotten affairs. And even the first half of that one isn’t so great.
It began as an inspiring little story about The Little Country That Could. In its positive reminder that central to the American spirit is the character of its citizens, President Obama’s address to the Congress last Wednesday had was brilliant in terms both of his style of delivery. Viewers must have felt reunited with values from which this period of economic woe has estranged them.
The Little Country That Could? Really?
President Obama eloquently reminded us that our maturation as a nation although tempting to chalk up to destiny, was achieved through a process of overcoming obstacles and learning from our mistakes. We really do rise to challenges and are resilient in responding to setbacks and in being reminded of this power there is hope for the future.
Yes, it’s true. Democracy is difficult. And there have been problems and setbacks, and things that will break you heart that happened in this country. Wrenching poverty, slavery, Jim Crow. European colonialism, Fascism, Communism, and other foreign problems also threatened us.
Built on messages of empowerment and hope, the initial five minutes were one of the great fragments in the history of State of the Union speeches. Had Obama transitioned from that superb entrée only into a lukewarm and uninspired main course of targeted tax cuts and a commitment to producing bipartisan measures to release the frustrated engine of American business, he would have had me at “my fellow Americans.”
If only he’d said he agrees with me on everything, I would agree with him on everything! Actually, the speech was far too conciliatory for my taste, but so are most of his speeches.
Instead, President Obama demonstrated why he is still focused primarily on being the leader of the left-wing of the Democrat Party and not the entire nation, in being a hatchet man and not a healer. He attempted to label the Republicans as blind obstructionists despite the fact that their minority status does not avail them of power to obstruct anything. He lashed out at businesses audacious enough to achieve miraculous profitability when others fail, and restated his belief that success should be taxed to help pay the bills of failing enterprises such as government-run General Motors and AIG.
Well there are tools, especially in the Senate, that allow the minority party to obstruct action. And the Republicans have availed themselves of those tools. Although, yes, the Democrats should have just passed these without considering Republican feelings. Sort of contradicts what you’d said in the previous paragraph, and at the beginning of this one, but whatever. Also, he lashed out at businesses that took taxpayer money (both in the form of bailouts and artificially low interest rates) and then paid themselves huge bonuses.
The invitation for Americans to wish away the severity of our national economic condition by embracing a warm hatred for those who might be better off was still only a prelude to the main event; the listing of enemies was not complete. Why stop at corporations and Republicans? Why let the great moment of this crisis go to waste?
Huh?
Pivoting further to the left, President Obama slid one foot forward across the sacrosanct line that has traditionally separated the executive and judiciary, and leaned into a solid punch to the collective jaw of the Supreme Court seated only yards away.
At the end of this post, he mentions that he knows Reagan attacked the Supreme Court for Roe. But that doesn’t count because shut up that’s why.
Railing against the Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals, President Obama chastised the six justices in attendance suggesting that they “reversed a century of law” in a way that would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations.”
It was a 5-4 decision, so I’m not sure he chastened 6 justices. But it’s undeniable that they reversed a century of law and opened the floodgates for special interests. So apparently the president saying obviously true things is unconscionable speech, but gigantic corporations influencing elections is neat speech.
Amid sporadic applause from the Democrats in the chamber, Justice Samuel Alito let forth a restrained but emotional retort; the emphatic words “not true” appeared to come forth as a rapid and indignant reaction to Kid Chicago’s interbranch sucker punch and the malicious distortion of the Court’s intent. His response was measured and justified. To have held back in the situation would have created the impression that the Court was deferential to the President. In that sense, Alito’s comeback was not sparring but important.
First Wilson then this, what is it with bad behavior from media whore corporate apologists listening to the President, anyway? Democrats sat respectfully through lies about war, but Obama says things that are true, and these right wingers can’t control themselves? Please! Oh, also, “Kid Chicago”? You are a bad writer.
Never mind that the President ignored two centuries of public observance of the principle of separated powers, and that the constitutional principles on which the decision was made are hardly controversial. The same injustice that drove the Founding Fathers to break away from the British Empire – taxation without representation – underlies the rights of corporations to speak on issues that affect them. The government imposes regulations on corporations, taxes them in ways it does not tax individuals, and makes decisions about the way in which individuals and businesses may make agreements. Does it not make sense then that they should be afforded rights to speak on their own behalf? Any abridgement of the rights of political speech would be unconstitutional.
We broke away for many reasons, most famously, of course for our rights to, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Corporations, by definition, can have none of these. In fact corporations don’t have the right to exist at all. Hell, if Red County were around then, you can bet some of its writers would be complaining about the Sons of Liberty who are trying to interfere with the East India Company’s attempts to make an honest buck.
To miss the hypocrisy in the President’s foreign donor rationale for limited free corporate speech point requires selective amnesia. Obama’s 2008 campaign was itself accused of opening the “floodgates” to foreign donors when credit card transaction processing procedures were alleged to have been deliberately configured. Millions in untraceable donations were made in the primary and general election periods and his campaign steadfastly refused to work with credit card companies to investigate if any of those donations would have to be returned in accordance with campaign finance laws.
The prepaid credit cards first: all those records have been public for over a year, and nobody has actually found any problems, because it is people giving their own money. But more importantly it’s at the very least an open question if foreign corporations can now dump unlimited money into our elections, and you can bet some foreign corporation is going to try.
From the White House and their defenders in the media, we should brace for a litany of citations of previous presidential commentary about decisions of the Supreme Court. [See editor’s note below.] Any such attempt at equivocation relies on Americans ignoring the difference between a president speaking out about the Court’s work and scolding them directly and publicly.
You mean like when FDR said blasted the court for overturning the National Recovery Act and then tried to explain in much more depth why they were wrong including:
The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good.
The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.
Because holy shit dude, that sounds like attacking the Supreme Court at the State of the Union (although I don’t know if they invited the Supremes to the SOTU back then, I assume they did). In any event, FDR was so hurt by that speech he only won reelection 2 more times. Also, as long as we’re here, I seem to recall Jefferson had a bit of a rocky relationship with the judicial branch.
By using the State of the Union address as a barnstorming platform to highlight wedge issues, drive fundraising with key liberal interest groups, he gave yet another reason to believe that his promise to voters to mellow the partisan tone in Washington was just another hollow campaign promise. But by deciding to trample on basic precepts of divided power, President Obama has caused many to question whether he understands the principles that guide the system of government he leads.
Trample on basic precepts by saying he disagreed with a ruling?
Let us hope that the next time the President assumes that ascending to the bully pulpit gave him the right or responsibility to be the bully, he will remember the shock of having his dominance challenged in such a public way. If not, at least let Justice Alito, Rep. Joe Wilson or some other brave soul be sitting there to set him straight again.
When the president says something that’s obviously true, let’s pray that some attention whore is willing to yell at them.