I’ve been thinking a little more about the Supreme Court’s decision. This ruling gives foreign powers more rights than U.S. citizens. Imagine that! Aramco, a corporation owned by the Saudi Arabian government (whose citizens attacked the U.S. on 9/11/2001 from their base in Afghanistan), will have enormously more influence in choosing your senator than you will. And shouldn’t shareholders have the right to vote before a corporation spends money on politics? Do we want foreign-owned corporations, especially those owned by foreign governments, to exercise an undue influence in our politics?

Imagine what an enterprise owned or influenced by the Chinese or Russian governments might try to do to a politician who campaigns too ardently for human rights? Could this open the door to Communism in America? *smirk*

Why aren’t conservatives up in arms about this? Why aren’t they calling for Roberts’ head on a platter? Why aren’t they screaming about “activist judges”? Heh.

So it’s on. The Citizens United case is the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century, only the roles are reversed. Conservatives who bashed liberal judges for “legislating from the bench” and disrespecting precedent are now exposed as unprincipled poseurs. Liberals who grew up depending on courts to protect the public interest must now build a mass movement to confront the greatest accumulation of corporate power since the age of the robber barons.

[...]

What’s the remedy? A constitutional amendment is tempting, but tampering with the First Amendment is a bad idea. The best option is Sen. Dick Durbin’s ingenious campaign-reform bill. The idea, which already works well in New York City and other localities, is to set up a public-financing system that rewards candidates who attract small donors. House candidates, for example, who raise at least $50,000 in donations of $100 or less would be eligible for $900,000 in public money. The president must move the bill to the center of his agenda and mobilize his 13 million 2008 contributors to pressure Congress to enact it.

New laws regulating corporate governance are also essential. Britain requires shareholders to vote on corporate political expenditures. We should do the same, and adopt Arlen Specter’s bill banning political contributions from corporations that contract with the government.

As of last week, the latter is probably unconstitutional. Until one of these hypocrites retires, we can’t expect the judiciary to protect average citizens from the power of big money.

via t r u t h o u t | Jonathan Alter | High-Court Hypocrisy.