When the corporate Supreme Court made it’s onerous and democracy-ending ruling on Citizen’s United, the whole election process went out of the hands of regular “citizens” and into the deep deep pockets of corporations and super pacs. Not that I am a fan of Newt Gingrich, I am not, but in the last few days in Iowa he has been the brunt of relentless negative advertising by one of
Mitt Romney’s Super Pacs, Restore Our Future the candidate’s name does not appear on the ads. This gives him cover. The only question is whether he endorses what is said in his name (which does not appear). Remember Ron Paul’s problem with his newsletters? He said other people wrote the letters, yet they were published under his name. He wiggled out from under that one. But isn’t that a little disingenuous? Seems to me if an attack ad goes after someone in your name, although your name doesn’t appear on the ad, don’t you think that person would endorse or decry it?
But that really isn’t the whole point of the flood gates opening after the dreadful Supreme Court decision. No, the real point is the voice of the people being suppressed. If corporations are “people my friend” then opposing voices of corporate choices should be heard, don’t you think? Not every corporation speaks with one voice. If they are made up of individuals under one standard, then it would follow that the people are not clones but individual thinkers. (This includes Unions as well) Since the Court said the corporations were people, the companies the pacs and whatever else, think that the loudest voices are the real representative voices of that corporation, pac or union. That is not free speech, that is a fat bank account talking.
It is estimated that this election cycle for President will weigh in at close to a billion (with a ‘b’) dollars. Does anyone think that borders on the obscene?
and so it goes…