Democracy is dead in the U.S.A.

One of my favorite Leonard Cohen songs is Democracy in which he sings:

I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight
Getting lost in that hopeless little screen
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
That time cannot decay
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
This little wild bouquet
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Well, Leonard, I used to believe that, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision that's so wrongheaded, so stupid, so defiant of existing laws that the only basis for it had to pure partisan politics at its most base level, has decided we no longer have democracy in this country -- that, in fact, we have a government that's for sale to the highest bidder.

As a result of the Supremes' blunder, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

This ruling -- perhaps the most blatant example in American history of the Supreme Court re-writing the law -- erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. For some reason, the Court ruled there is no difference between a corporation and a person, thus saying corporations were protected under the First Amendment rights protecting free speech. Who do these five so-called justices think they are kidding? Of course there's a difference between corporations and a person and that difference is embedded in laws of this land. To prove the point, you need look no further than our tax laws: there's personal income tax and an entirely different corporate tax structure.

The five justices completely ignored the Constitution, which assigns and protects rights to the people, the press, religions, even militias. But, by gum, I can't find the word "corporation" in there anywhere. Corporations are one thing and one thing only: creations of the state that exist to make money. To say they have the same right to spend money on candidates as I have to speak about a candidate is patently ridiculous and a complete abandonment of laws that have stood in this country for more than a century. (It was 1907 when Congress passed laws banning corporations from contributing directly to political candidates.)

The court's majority opinion actually had the nerve to say campaign spending by corporations does "not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” C'mon. Let's say our own Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson decided to vote for health care reform and all the insurance companies and all the drug companies and all the hospitals banded together and told Rep. Johnson: "We are going to spend millions of dollars -- whatever it takes -- to make sure you are defeated in the next election" and then they do just that, wouldn't that have, at least, "the appearance of corruption”? Sure it would.

It is vital to the future of this country that justices be appointed to the Supreme Court that will overturn this dangerous decision that was wrong on the law. In the meantime, Congress should pass legislation as quickly as possible that would require two-thirds approval from the shareholders of any public corporation before that corporation could contribute to a political campaign.