Sold to the Highest Bidder

As we approach the mid-term elections an unseen force begins to exert undue influence over our political process. This force, money, is not new to the political process nor is it new to undue influence over said process. However, what is now new is that moneyed interests now have a legal right to attempt to buy the outcome. Legal precedent established in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission case now make it lawful for corporations to put as much money as they desire into elections. Unlike individuals, corporations are able to donate as much as they would like and can even directly air advertising.

The Citizen's United ruling hinges on an even greater misrepresentation from the 1886 ruling in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which corporations were granted personhood (see link elsewhere on this page for a review of the court case). As is commonly known, the case did not actually rule on that issue, but rather the clerk scribbled it after the fact on the document.

Of course it defies logic that corporations are people, but what defies logic even more is the ruling in Citizen's United that removes limits on political spending by corporations. Logically it would seem to follow that if limits can be placed on individuals who are actual people, then limits could also be imposed on corporations, which as people are legal fictions.

Beyond this egregious idea that corporations are people with the rights of individuals, is the other idea to emerge from the Citizen's United ruling that these groups can give money without identifying the source.

On Sunday, speaking on Face the Nation, presidential advisor David Axelrod stated that foreign corporations are involved in donating money through Republican groups to influence the election. The Democrats apparently are even rolling out an ad campaign around this idea.

"Foul!" cry the Republicans, "you can't prove it." Well obviously not. It is impossible to prove who anonymous donors are. That is completely the point. As long as donors are able to remain anonymous it will be impossible to know who is trying to buy our democracy. What is really strange is that the holier-than-thou Tea Party seems completely silent about this matter. Could it be that they are using this to their advantage? Witness Art Robinson, global warming denier and Oregon congressional candidate. Mysteriously, ads critical of Robinson's opponent have appeared allegedly without his knowledge as to the source of funding.

Back to the issue of foreign money. To think that corporations are giving money and there is no foreign involvement strains credibility as to how corporations are organized. Corporations, those large enough to give money on the scale that influences elections, are rarely single nation entities. Transnational corporations are the norm rather than the exception. Many of these global behemoths have financial resources greater than most nations, yet are treated as if they are individual American citizens. Is there anyone who believes that these entities are above trying to influence an election, or for that matter, all elections?

Without limits on corporate spending and without disclosure laws there is absolutely nothing to prevent foreign entities, corporate or state, from clandestinely providing resources in an attempt to buy a government. Our representatives are already beholden enough to moneyed interests. Without disclosure and limits, the government is up for auction.

Follow the money. Notice who defends this state of affairs that would allow for the unlimited flow of dollars from foreign companies, governments and individuals to influence U.S. elections. Will Exxon, China and Bin Laden decide who we elect next?