The build up to the Disclose Act; and why the G.O.P. is against it

The Disclose Act is the name given to a piece of legislation that will soon be filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. The act's sole purpose is to ensure transparency in corporate donations to political candidates and special interest groups. It comes as a legislative act to limit the damage of the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporation to donate unlimited funds into the political arena.

Back in January, The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot ban corporate spending in election campaigns. Their reason: The First Amendment of Free Speech.

The incredibly idiocy of the decision is revealed in remarks made by Justice Thomas at a Florida law school if February.

His logic as follows:

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

I find it incredible that a man who made it to the Supreme Court, a post of supposedly high intelligence, would compare an interest group with a corporation.

An interest group is made of people who willingly join a community for the purpose of voicing their opinions.

A corporation is a group of people who become members for pre-agreed terms of monetary payment for their services. Also, the high administration of a corporation (e.g. the decision making panel) is but a fraction of the organization's population. Like how the common American cannot be blamed directly for the actions of congressmen or presidents, the vast majority of corporation members do not have a voice in how the organization does anything (plus they don't even get to vote like citizens do).

Also, the board of directors, the C.E.O., and whatever elements of high management did not join together to advance an idea. They were hired. That is why they were accepted into the fraternity in the first place. That is their job. When they go home, they are people like anyone else. They can vote like anyone else, they can donate their own money to politicians like anyone else. They already enjoy their First Amendment rights. But when they are at work, they are employees, and they serve the needs of their employer: the corporation.

The corporation is a non-human entity that exists in a sort of robotic state to make more money. The people who control it at the moment only do so because they receive bribes from the system in either salary, bonuses or benefits. The very instant that a controlling member leaves a corporation, cutting him/herself off from the financial incentives that effectively amount to bribery, they no longer will have interest in that corporation's "political opinions." In effect, people who control corporations operate in politics the exact same way that the citizens of Afghanistan currently work in their corrupt sham of a system: "This man gave me four goats, so I will vote for him; unless someone else gives me five goats, of course."

These people are not voicing opinions; they are being bribed to make them by the force of capitalism itself. The same force that has destroyed countless lives without the drop of a tear, the doubt of conscience. A force without ethics, without humanity, and without any interests besides the endlessly fluctuating numbers of economics. 

And let us not forget the other members of these supposed "interest groups." What about the vast majority of members of the corporation who do not have a voice in the use of this campaign money? What about the vast majority of members of this group who have no vote, no say in the leadership of their "interest group?"  Allowing the leaders of corporations to use corporate money in campaigns is akin to allowing the President of the United States to write up a budget and then not have to get congressional approval (i.e. a dictatorship).

If rich business men want to voice their opinions, they can do it outside of their corporation's revenue stream with their own money, just like every other citizen of our country. They can even group together their money and donate it like anyone else.

However, the decision was made. Likely to go down in history with other such blunders as the Dredd Scott blunder.

Yet there is hope. Obama and the Democrats are pushing forward with legislation that will at least preserve some semblance of dignity in the American political system. In the same manner that political ads must plainly state who created them, this new law will force all campaign donations into the open air. Any special interest group will have to publicly display which corporations donated money to their message and/or cause. Ensuring that voters will know exactly what interests are behind various elements of political propaganda and media.

As is to be expected, the G.O.P. is fighting against it. And as usual, they are using lies to do so.

In advance of the vote, Mr. McConnell on Monday described the legislation as the product of backroom deals. He said the measure “seeks to protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all out attack on the First Amendment."

This is a lie because the law does not prohibit any sort of ad to be run. It silences no one. It simply makes it illegal for donations to be anonymous. How is it protecting anyone? The Democrats will be equally scrutinized by the law.

Obama makes a keen point: 

Anticipating the legislation’s defeat, he said, “Now imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians. Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign.”

“Nobody is saying you can’t run the ads -- just make sure that people know who in fact is behind financing these ads,” Mr. Obama added. “And you’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue. But of course, this is Washington in 2010. And the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and every maneuver they can to prevent the Disclose Act from even coming up for an up or down vote."

So are the G.O.P. resisting the law because of their tactic of obstructionism? Or do they fear that this law will reveal them to be the corporate sell-outs that they are?

I think it's probably both.