The End of the American Democracy As We Know it

Based on the controversial Jan 20th ruling of the US Supreme Court, the long standing law that placed limits on the amount of money that could be funneled by US based corporations into campaign-financing for local, state and federal elections has now been reversed. The argument given by the Supreme Court is that Corporations, like individuals, have right to free speech. Placing limits on those amounts would effectively mean limiting free speech.

But, since when did Corporations have rights like those for individuals? Well, surprisingly, the idea that corporations have rights like individuals is not new. Take the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution for example. This amendment confers basic civil rights like liberty, right to life, property and not denying equal protection of the laws to any citizen, under its jurisdiction. It "formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state". As mentioned, the amendment primarily talks about conferring the above rights and privileges upon individuals.

However, in 1866, a side-remark in the landmark ruling in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, marked a huge precedent for "corporate personhood". Dealing with taxation of railroad properties, the case was most notable for the obiter dictum (in Latin it means "a tangential legal opinion expressed in the ruling that is neither binding nor necessarily related to the case at hand") statement that corporations are entitled to the 14th Amendment like individuals. Quite ironically, the side-remark was not even part of the court's opinion on the case itself. But for the obiter dictum piece of the ruling, this case would've been practically lost in history as just another legal tax battle between corporations and the state. It is debatable, however, whether the remark itself qualified as a legal precedent, but it was practically treated as one, for all subsequent rulings.

Personally, I fail to see any rationale whether anthropological, scientific or economic - to treat corporations as humans, except maybe for their greed, which makes the argument against the ruling even stronger. I know that Accounting-101 teaches us to treat corporations as legal entities. But, I didn't know that they had to be alive, too. Now, that is unheard of. And, considering the lifespans of some of these big corporations, they would practically be immortal, or at least transcendental . But, that's a whole different spiritual discussion. And, we all know corporate spirituality is an oxymoron!

Coming back to the campaign-finance issue, though, it is quite surprising that there isn't enough of a debate or media attention given to it (except a passing innuendo by President Obama in his first State of the Union address and a few op-ed pieces), given the far-reaching impact that this decision can have, in the way this country can carry out its due electoral process. This ruling will now open a pandora's box for 'Special Interest Groups', that can now wield enough financial power, to influence the outcome of any election, that will help advance their interests, commercial or otherwise.

So, what would be the ramifications of this ruling? So, for example, if Goldman Sachs doesn't like the regulation imposing limits on executive compensation, it could lobby hard enough to finance the election campaign of a candidate who is willing to eliminate this limit (he/she could well be a Goldman Sachs alum) . Alternatively, if the health-insurance industry, didn't like the reform "that would ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions", that would most likely drive up their costs and/or lower their profits, they could spend millions of dollars in getting a candidate, who is more sympathetic towards their industry, get elected. Given the far-reaching effects these campaign ads can have, in terms of influencing the viewers, they can prove effective in molding popular opinion in their favor. Thus, the possibilities emerging out of this ruling are limitless, and their impact far-reaching.

Now does that sound like a democracy? I am not so sure. Why, then would the very idea of 'corporate personhood' be introduced in the legal framework of the US Constitution? What if it were all a 'legal fiction' ? Well, here's one argument, that might make sense out of this concept, that is seemingly preposterous to begin with. What if the very idea of democracy were an illusion or better still, a mask that was being used to strategically cover blatant and unabashed capitalism, all along? (Hey, don't take me for a leftist or get me wrong. Until there is a better alternative for meritocracy, I am all for capitalism. Hell, that's what got me to the land of the lady liberty in the first place!)

But, this might be something worth pondering about. It is beyond debate, that this set-up is highly favorable to corporations. If corporations are happy, so would Wall Street. This in turn would mean, our 401(k)s look healthy and our annual bonuses obese. This might explain the apparent silence of the bourgeois, on this game-changing ruling. Let's face it - As Americans, we care more about capitalism than about democracy. We do not care much about getting equal rights, the right to vote, or the right to voice our opinions. (Well, why would we? We all very well know how 'democratic' our election process, truly is. We also know how far a 'popular vote' can go in getting the candidate of our choice elected. Moreover, we cannot help but acknowledge and accept the true power of the omniscient Electoral College that can give a disproportionate clout to 'swing states' in overriding popular political sentiment and thus change the overall outcome of the presidential election.) Anyways, as long as we get to live in luxurious houses, drive fancier cars, buy all our favorite iToys, when Santa comes home with stockings full of Benjamins on Christmas Day, we couldn't care less.

What's wrong with that? Well, nothing. But, at least, let's be honest with our future generations. At the very least, we should correctly 'adjust' the definition of democracy in our political science textbooks. For starters, the following wouldn't be very far from the truth:

A political system that has a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Sounds more like plutocracy? Well, I can't blame you! In a democracy, I always thought everybody was treated equal. But after this ruling, I realized one thing - Corporations will be more equal than individuals!