M**d
发帖数: 4418 | 1 http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100124.htm
The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy
Noam Chomsky
chomsky.info, January 24, 2010
(abridged version published in In These Times, February 2, 2010)
January 21, 2010 will go down as a dark day in the history of American
democracy, and its decline. The editors of the New York Times did not
exaggerate when they wrote that the Supreme Court decision that day "strikes
at the heart of democracy" by having "paved the way for corporations to use
their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected
officials into doing their bidding" -- more explicitly, for permitting
corporate managers to do so, since current laws permit them to spend
shareholder money without consent.
Nor does Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for
Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law, exaggerate when he writes that this
exercise of the radical judicial activism that the rightwing claims to
deplore "matches or exceeds Bush v. Gore in ideological or partisan
overreaching by the court. In that case, the court reached into the
political process to hand the election to one candidate. Today it reached
into the political process to hand unprecedented power to corporations."
The Court was split, with the four reactionary judges (misleadingly called "
conservative") joined by Justice Kennedy in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice
Roberts selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow
grounds, and maneuvered the Court into using it for a far-reaching decision
that overturned precedents going back a century that restrict corporate
contributions to federal campaigns.
In effect, the decision permits corporate managers to buy elections directly
, instead of using more complex indirect means, though it is likely that to
avoid negative publicity they will choose to do so through trade
organizations. It is well-known that corporate campaign contributions,
sometimes packaged in complex ways, are a major factor determining the
outcome of elections. This alone is a significant factor in policy decisions
, reinforced by the enormous power of corporate lobbies, greatly enhanced by
the Court's decision, and other conditions imposed by the very small sector
of the population that dominates the economy.
A very successful predictor of government policy over a long period is
political economist Thomas Ferguson's "investment theory of politics," which
interprets elections as occasions on which segments of private sector power
coalesce to invest to control the state. The means for undermining
democracy are sure to be enhanced by the Court's dagger blow at the heart of
functioning democracy.
Some legislative remedies are being proposed, for example requiring managers
to consult with shareholders. At best, that would be a minor limit on the
corporate takeover of the political system, given the very high
concentration of ownership by extreme wealth and other corporate
institutions. Furthermore any legislation would have been difficult to pass
even without this new weapon provided by the Court to unaccountable private
concentrations of power. The same holds, even more strongly, for a
Constitutional amendment that Waldman and others think might be necessary to
restore at least the limited democracy that prevailed before the decision.
In his dissent, Justice Stevens acknowledged that "we have long since held
that corporations are covered by the First Amendment." That traces back to
the time when the 1907 Tillman act banned corporate contributions, the
precedent overturned by the Court. In the early 20th century, legal
theorists and courts came to adopt and implement the Court's 1886 (Santa
Clara) principle that these "collectivist legal entities" have the same
rights as persons of flesh and blood, an attack on classical liberalism that
was sharply condemned by the vanishing breed of conservatives as "a menace
to the liberty of the individual, and to the stability of the American
States as popular governments" (Christopher Tiedeman). In later years these
rights were expanded far beyond those of persons, notably by the mislabeled
"free trade agreements."
The conception of corporate personhood evolved alongside the shift of power
from shareholders to managers, and finally to the doctrine that "the powers
of the board of directors ... are identical with the powers of the
corporation." Furthermore, the courts determined that these state-
established "natural entities" must restrict themselves to pursuit of profit
and market share, though the courts did advise corporations to support
charitable and educational causes, or an "aroused public" might take away
the privileges granted to them by state power.
As corporate personhood and managerial independence were becoming
established in law, the control of corporations over the economy was so vast
that Woodrow Wilson described "a very different America from the old, ...
no longer a scene of individual enterprise ... individual opportunity and
individual achievement," but an America in which "Comparatively small groups
of men," corporate managers, "wield a power and control over the wealth and
the business operations of the country," becoming "rivals of the government
itself." In reality, becoming increasingly its masters, a process that has
extended since, and is now given even greater scope by the Roberts Court.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that there is no principled way to
distinguish between media corporations and other corporations: that is, no
principled way to distinguish between corporations that are bound by law to
restrict themselves to gaining profit and market share from those that in
principle have the role of providing news and opinion in an unbiased fashion
. Media corporations have indeed been criticized for violating this trust,
but never so severely as in Kennedy's analogy.
The Court decision followed immediately upon another victory for wealth and
power, the election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to replace the late
Senator Edward Kennedy, the "liberal lion" of Massachusetts. This was
depicted as a "populist upsurge" against the liberal elitists who run the
government. The voting data reveal a rather different story. Very high
voting in the wealthy suburbs carried Brown to victory, thanks to lower
turnout in the urban areas that are largely Democratic. "55% of Republican
voters said they were `very interested' in the election," the Wall St.
Journal reported, "compared with 38% of Democrats. It was indeed an uprising
against Obama's policies: for the wealthy, he was not doing enough to
enrich them further, while for the poorer sectors, he was doing too much to
achieve that end.
Doubtless there was some impact of the populist image crafted by the PR
machine ("this is my truck," "army guy," etc.). But this appears to have had
only a minor role. The popular anger is quite understandable, with the
banks thriving thanks to bailouts while unemployment is above 10% and in
manufacturing industry at the level of the Great Depression, one out of six
unemployed, with few prospects for recovering the kinds of jobs that are
lost, with the increasing financialization of the economy and concomitant
hollowing out of productive industry.
Brown presented himself as the 41st vote against health care -- the vote
that could undermine majority rule, by virtue of the current Republican
tactic of regular resort to filibuster to enable a unanimous minority bloc
to bar any legislation put forth by the administration, a novelty in
American politics. It is true that Obama's health care program was a major
factor in the election, and the headlines are correct when they report that
the public is increasingly turning against it. The poll figures explain why:
the bill did not go far enough.
A Wall St. Journal/NBC poll found that 64% of voters disapprove of the
Republicans' handling of health care (55% disapprove of Obama's handling).
Among Obama voters who voted for Brown, 60% felt that the health care
program did not go far enough (85% among those who abstained). In both
categories, about 85% favored a public option. These figures accord with
other recent polls that show that nationwide, the public option was favored
by 56%-38%, and the Medicare buy-in at age 55 by 64%-30%; both abandoned. 85
% believe that the government should have the right to negotiate drug prices
, as in other countries; Obama guaranteed big Pharma that he would not
pursue that option. Large majorities favor cost-cutting, which makes good
sense: US per capita costs for health care are about twice those of other
industrial countries, and health outcomes are at the low end. But cost-
cutting cannot be seriously undertaken with largesse showered on the drug
companies, and health care in the hands of virtually unregulated private
insurers, a very costly system unique to the US.
The Supreme Court decision raises significant new barriers to overcoming the
serious crisis of health care, or to addressing seriously such critical
issues as the looming environmental and energy crises. And the damage to
American democracy can hardly be overestimated.
| M**d
发帖数: 4418 | 2 其实一直都这样，只不过这次是最高法院裁定合法而已
strikes
use
【在 M**d 的大作中提到】
: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100124.htm
: The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy
: Noam Chomsky
: chomsky.info, January 24, 2010
: (abridged version published in In These Times, February 2, 2010)
: January 21, 2010 will go down as a dark day in the history of American
: democracy, and its decline. The editors of the New York Times did not
: exaggerate when they wrote that the Supreme Court decision that day "strikes
: at the heart of democracy" by having "paved the way for corporations to use
: their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected
| t***h
发帖数: 5601 | 3 大多数美国人都反对最高法院的这个决定.
【在 M**d 的大作中提到】
: 其实一直都这样，只不过这次是最高法院裁定合法而已
:
: strikes
: use
| M**d
发帖数: 4418 | 4 美国的制度保证了几个大法官是符合美国统治阶级利益的
【在 t***h 的大作中提到】
: 大多数美国人都反对最高法院的这个决定.
| l*****i
发帖数: 20533 | 5 这就是民主啊！民众有反对最高法院决定的权力，虽然其实际作用顶多仅限于自己家里
，如果不是压根没有任何作用的话。
【在 t***h 的大作中提到】
: 大多数美国人都反对最高法院的这个决定.
| M**d
发帖数: 4418 | 6 美国政府做大多数美国人反对的事情，多的去了。
【在 t***h 的大作中提到】
: 大多数美国人都反对最高法院的这个决定.
| l******8
发帖数: 9475 | 7 毛主席早就教导我们说: 官僚, 买办资本主义.
买办! |
|
