Tuesday, February 2, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and Its Effect on Big Corporations

The U.S. Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has decided that large corporations have the same rights as any other human being in this country. They have the right to freedom of speech and can use their own money the same as any individual in this country to influence voters when it comes to elected officials and elections.

The idea of being able to create large corporate entities was developed during the industrial period of our country to allow companies to grow by raising large sums of funding from many individuals. Because no one individual had direct control over the decisions made by a business it was decided to limit liabilities to protect individual investors.

Corporations were created and given limited rights as if they were people not just companies. They had to pay taxes and could be sued but the owners of the corporations could not be personally held responsible for their corporation’s behavior. Only the assets of the corporation could be taking if the corporation failed therefore personal assets of the investors were protected which encouraged people to invest in those corporations. This allowed our country to grow and develop a Gross National Product that could be sold to Americans and other countries alike.

The problem is that a corporation is not in reality a human being and because of that it should have no rights to freedom of speech. The government never gave a corporation the right to vote because they understood that corporations could be owned by anyone either in this country or from outside this country and only Americans should have the right to influence elections within our country. Far too many of our corporations are now owned by investors from other countries and it is not in the best interest of our country to allow outsiders to have a voice in our political process. This issue is a serious matter of national security for our country.

Individual investors and CEOs have little to no interest in what is best for our people. Their views as shown in the recent past are only on short term profit. If I was a CEO of a large corporation right about now I would be recruiting candidates from both parties that would vote from issues like limited liabilities on lawsuits and environmental protection laws that would best benefit my corporation. If I was a foreign CEO I would want someone who would lower trade restrictions and reduce security measures.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made a huge error with this decision and this gap must be closed by the current administration before it is allowed to get out of control.

Today Senator Tom Udall took a step in the right direction by inducing an Amendment to limit the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision.

"Money can have a corrosive effect on the political process. We've seen evidence of that in campaigns at all levels of government," Udall said. "We have long needed substantive campaign finance reform, and it's my hope that the high court's disappointing decision will provide the push we need to put elections back in the hands of average Americans."