With the Supreme Court now hearing arguments on campaign finance, and possibly on the verge of clearing the way for corporations to be freed of all campaign restraints, it is more important than ever that the Justices consider the current economic, political and media context - into which their decisions actuate and serve to hamstring Congress and the people.
Indeed, what is the current context into which their decisions reverberate? As things stand in "our" land, we have six men who own and control corporate mass media, tv, and radio. We have a private central bank owned by big banks with complete control over money and credit and whose wallets are filled, and ever refreshed, with money made "out of thin air."
We have a capitol city drowning in corporate money and their foundations and think tanks overwhelming any advocacy dedicated to the great mass of working Americans. Further, we do not have a National Initiative process by which the people might overrule "their" congress and the courts.
In addition, we do not elect our trade representative, our Attorney General, Chairmen of the Federal Reserve, or Chief Justice of The Supreme Court. We, the people, have been made "independent' of any real power and influence in our own country -- largely via the corporate-influenced appointment processleading to administration after administration in which corporate power and profit consolidates and prevails against the people.
In short, what we already have is a virulent plutocracy and corporate domination writ large -- a dismal condition greatly propelled by the Buckley v. Valeo decision in which money was defined as free speech rather than power. This figment of the court's imagination is surely the most dangerous construct of all -- and Mussolini would be proud.
Chief Justice Roberts has stated that "the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it." With money defined as speech, we are then to error on the side of protecting money, meaning big money.
Such a sentiment would be fine if political speech were not defined as money and overpowered by corporate forces in society - whose money power and influence greatly overwhelm the people's voice. It would be fine if the oligarchic conditons cited above did not exist. It would be fine except for the fact so many good people are unwilling to run for office due precisely to the lack of public campaign financing and the need to be obedient to corporate and media concerns.
In the current socio-economic setting, however, this money-as-speech ideation is a recipe for fascism and virulent plutocracy, not any real democracy and freedom.
Given the imbalanced socio-economic state of our nation, for the Justices to even consider giving more freedom and power to corporate money is not just unfair, it is the height of injustice for which the court members would be villified for decades to come.
The result would be an even further corrupted capitalism and corporate-driven political process which will end in turmoil, depression, and revolution -- a stage we are fast approaching due precisely to the lack of what I call a "factor balance" in society -- i.e. a balance of power between capital and labor, the very lack of which breeds deregulation, corruption, and private central bank hegemony defeating the interests of the people.
Clearly, court decisions about money as "freedom" and "speech" must surely take into consideration the societal context -- in our case today a stone-cold oligarchy meaning private control of the Fed, corporate media ownership and editorship, and now the highest disparity of wealth ever recorded.
The Supreme Court must now prove itself capable of protecting the interests of the people as a whole and not simply corporate behemoths -- now mistakenly defined as "persons" rather than forces armed with the media tools and money to overwhelm democracy and the freedom of the people to define their own society. The Supreme court must now right the scales.