|
The decision was Buckley v Valeo and it came down in 1976. Here's Wiki's quick summary:
"Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, was a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns."
Corporations have been granted "personhood" for centuries (not sure when the first legal affirmation was), which effectively means they enjoy all the benefits of any breathing American citizen under Constitutional law, but have none of the associated legal responsibilities. In 1976, they were affirmed as persons with a political voice, and that voice takes the form of money.
So as you point out, we now live in a bribe-ocracy, where those with the most cash get the best no-bid contracts or the lightest regulatory scrutiny that money can buy. As a result, we have two political parties that are almost exclusively dedicated to serving the interests of about 2 percent of the population, along with 5,000 or so major corporations. So maybe 600,000 rich elites and 5,000 or so corporations, whose boards the elite sit on, are the prime or sole concerns of official Washington. And they get instant access to their Congressional "dependents" whenever they want to rig the system in some new, creative way that lets them steal even more money. Everybody else can just take a number and wait for a decade or two.
And that influence shows up in things like the health care system. Any sane person knows that single-payer, universal access is the only way to go, and that the for-profit medical insurance industry is nothing but a money-sucking parasite getting fat on human misery. However, none of the Dem candidates except Kucinich advocates single payer. They’re all talking about some kind of expanded "coverage," which is just code for "let’s let the insurance industry fuck up the new system just like they did the existing one."
The best way to curb the overwhelming political influence of the rich and powerful is through public financing of campaigns. Realistically, it doesn't matter what we do to restrict their political reach. They'll find many legal ways to bend the rules and continue "donating" to their favorites. But at least normal people will be able to participate to some degree in the political favors auction.
Problem is, only legislation can change the way campaigns are financed and Congress doesn't want an end to corporate patronage. They whine about spending half their time grubbing for money, but they have staffers to do that for them. They just enjoy the benefits -- lavish golf trips to Scotland, Caribbean cruises, corporate jets, the occasional untraceable $10K in bearer bonds. It’s a nice life and they’re just not going to voluntarily give it up.
Also, the Fairness Doctrine is a bit overrated if I remember correctly. All it did was compel entities presenting political opinion over the public airwaves – such as TV punditry and wingnut radio – acknowledge that there are other points of view on the subject they're discussing. Those points of view don’t get equal time or equal weight; in fact, the FD would probably allow a moderator to use alternate viewpoints as joke lines and just have a jolly old GOP snicker about those simple souls on the left. But my memory may be faulty. Anybody else remember the FD differently?
wp
|