Reply #181: Supreme Court ruling: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commision (2010)

[Brewman_Jax]

This is the ruling that allows unlimited corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in accordance with the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. This was a landmark case allowing corporations to do something that had been illegal for decades.

The big questions are: Why? and Why now? Tim Wise answers the question in his talk at Oakwood University. The answer is his hypothesis, but he makes some very compelling points.

The short answer: President Barack Obama. He is the symbolic face of America, and a lot of people are not comfortable with that. In general, white people do not like when non-white people have too much influence in their lives. The teabagger movement is a prime example of that. Also, various municipalities (esp. affluent and majority white) clamoring for incorporation and cityhood to get from under county commissions that are majority non-white. The new cities of the north sections of Fulton County, GA and Dekalb County, GA are recent examples. Of course, not all of the teabaggers are racist, nor are all of the proponents of cityhood, but their timing and reasoning should be questioned.

In the time after the limits on corporations were imposed, people of color have become both a larger share of the total population and voting population. Demographic projections show that around the middle of the 21st Century, non-Hispanic white people will be roughly 50% of the population of the USA; no longer the overwhelming numerical majority. That begs the question: why are corporations, with their massive economic influence that was checked by the Federal Election Commission, being allowed to influence elections? To maintain the status quo, esp. when corporate America is 98% white. Even Justice Stevens acknowledged that media corporations know that "media outlets may seek to influence elections."

The ruling without a context, makes no sense; but in the context of race and influence, it makes a lot of sense. With that demographic shift in mind, the old tricks of felony disenfranchisement and voter fraud are not enough to insure the desired outcome.





http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
http://vimeo.com/9501208 (video)