Corporations will rule Election Day

Of the $1.4 billion in campaign funds in the 2008 General Election, which nearly doubled 2004 figures, and covering all political parties in the House and Senate races, $404 million came from political action committees and $800 million from individual donations, a two-to-one ratio. In the presidential race, individual donations were $1.4 billion of the total $1.8 billion.

The deduction? PACs know their funds are best spent supporting elected officials who have the ultimate power to pass into law legislation that will have an impact on their interests. The influence of the almighty dollar at its best.

Data released Jan. 27 by the Federal Election Commission shows nearly $450 million has been accumulated for this year's midterm elections among both Democrats and Republicans, new candidates and incumbents inclusive, of which $130 million has come from PACs, while individual donations total $275 million.

But the recent Supreme Court decision on United Citizens vs the Federal Election Commission will no doubt turn on the spigots of corporate campaign financing, inflicting upon American voters a flurry of lies, half-truths and misrepresentations of candidates and ballot initiatives. And, in spite of the state of the economy, in this election year there will be beaucoup bucks thrown here, there and everywhere the politicians go. Contributions are still regulated (for now) but given the freedom for corporations to "speak," they will not resolve the grievous financial plights of American taxpayers.

Last year was totally wasted. Misdirected stimulus funds. Failure to focus on job creation. An inept, disruptive Congress. The redistribution of wealth from the Treasury to Wall Street. And health care reform that has turned the political arena into a self-interest free-for-all. States demanding exemptions, pharmaceutical companies muscling down attempts to contain rising costs, insurance companies refusing to give up even a smattering of their fortunes, and labor unions given exclusive concessions that sidestepped the concessions - all contributed to blocking any chance at health care reform.

Because of mistrust, confusion and worries about the economy, as never before, we've heard more and more about moderates, centrists, liberals, conservatives and, fresh out of the political coffee pot, comes another breed of political activists, Tea Party-goers. Our structured democratic state has gone helter-skelter. Because of these myriad opposing factions within both parties, the midterm elections are unpredictable. Corporate maneuvering has been set up to be the determining factor in many Congressional races.

The New York Times called the Supreme Court decision "a broad interpretation of free speech rights."

President Barack Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." And we all snickered at the posturing of the polished politician.

The court's decision played along party lines - Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, all appointed by Republican presidents, were the majority vote. They outnumbered Democrat-appointed Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 and the senior member who's gotten much wiser in his old age with 35 years on the bench, wrote, "The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf."

Lawrence Noble, who serves as general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, speculated corporations can, in essence, threaten, "We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you - whichever one you want." This interpretation is right on the money and suggests that any amount can make or break a candidate's bid for political office.

Looking forward, does this mean that large banking institutions, investors, mortgage lenders - in short, Wall Street - will effectively take on, and manipulate, any financial reform tactics proposed by the Obama administration? Count on it.

In the court decision, Kennedy wrote, "The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials."

As The Tampa Tribune opined, "... the ruling affirmed free speech and acknowledged voters can think for themselves." But voters are easily duped when flashy pictures appear before their eyes and fancy words and sounds fill their minds. Campaign infomercials may decide the upcoming elections.

Money is no object when corporations are given the means to influence American voters.

Face it, the Supreme Court sold out America and its citizens to corporate interests in the grandest of all mergers and acquisitions. We, the people, have been had by the supreme beings.