Article: The Road To A Corporate Republic: Are We There Yet Part 1

It is easy for those of us on the Left to overreact to the latest Supreme Court decision on the appeal of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission to overturn limits put on corporate donations to political campaigns. After all, the actions of our government make it all too obvious that corporate interests already outweigh public interests. Wars, bailouts, deregulation, and the lack of enforcement of current laws show that corporations count while people do not. Currently, our government takes care of corporations while expecting us to live off of their benevolence. Thus, what we have is a democracy once removed.

For Corporations to keep their preferred status with our government, they must silence potential critics and foes. This silencing is not done through force by muting protesters, but by anaesthetizing and inoculating the public from the virus of dissent by creating dependence. Enough must be made dependent on corporations so as to relegate criticism. We should note that if at this point, you replace corporations with government, you get the Conservative definition of Socialism. We should also note that Conservatives do not object to.the inevitable authoritarian rule that comes from such dependence as long as those in charge come from elite pockets of the private sector known as "The Achievers." In addition, we should realize the danger that the Left sees in this private sector authoritarianism. That danger is that corporate rulers are not accountable to the public through elections. The Conservative response is "Duh, that is why we call it a Republic."

The two parties that must be made dependent on corporations are government officials and citizens. It is obvious how government officials are made dependent on the government; it is through bribes both legal and illegal. Legal bribes come from lobbyists and the benefits they bestow. Other legal bribes come in the form of job offers after one's government service is finished. But perhaps the primary way our elected officials were made dependent on Corporations is through campaign financing. If candidates cannot not win elections without corporate financing while they can win without public financing, then corporations own the candidates--regardless of their political party affiliation. Note that votes are secondary to selecting our Congressmen and Presidents because the voters are so blindly committed to supporting a 2 party system.

Corporate ownership of our candidates has been threatened in two ways this millennium. The first threat came through campaign finance reform that "limited" what corporations could provide. The second threat came came in the 2004 Democratic primary races. Howard Dean was raising substantial support from individuals through the internet. If candidates became financially dependent on the public, they would no longer be under corporate control. Thus we have the just recent lawsuit and Supreme Court decision that removed the anchor that weighed down and kept corporate ownership of candidates from soaring.

This Supreme Court decision neither introduced anything new nor did it provide an ominous sign for the future. Rather, this Supreme Court decision merely nipped a possible problem in the bud; it stopped citizen influence over elected officials before it could get started. With a compliant and conforming electorate, all that is left for corporations to control government is to put them on the payroll. Once that is done, government will then pass the necessary legislation that allows a net profit to result from this venture. We should also note that once corporations can up the ante in campaign contributions, the resulting rising costs of such campaigns will remove them from depending on individual contributions--though such contributions will always be accepted in order to boost the egos of the contributors by making them feel like they were a significant part of the election..