By now most of you will have heard about the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision overruling more than a century of restrictions on political spending by corporations. (See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf).

The activist majority tossed more than a century of precedent and went far beyond the questions presented by the case before them, expanding the case to allow them to unleash the chained titans of the corporate world, who will now stomp the hell out of what is left of our democracy.

Fox (what a great name for this nasty little predator sneaking around in our national press henhouse) was predictably ecstatic about the decision (although that network long ago found another, very successful way to engage in nearly unlimited political advocacy while masquerading as a news outfit). Looking to the other ramparts, will "We the People" hear and heed the many and disparate voices raised in righteous anger about this fundamental change in constitutional case law?

Despair may be appropriate, but surprise would be a sign that you were not paying attention. Corporate interests have been working toward this goal for a long time and, with years of hard work and effective propaganda from the corporate shills and lackeys, this outcome was certainly predictable. This majority on the Court has now solidified and sanctified the notion that corporations are people too, with all the free speech rights of individuals, but without the responsibilities. How did these fictions (artificial persons), created specifically to shield from liability, gain the rights of those with flesh, blood, and breath? This decision is based on the fundamental fallacies that: 1) a corporation is a person; and 2) money is speech. Under the First Amendment, all people are entitled to speak freely. If corporation = person, then corporation must be allowed to speak without all but the most limited restrictions (e.g., no yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). Further, if spending money is speech, then corporations must be allowed to spend as they see fit, even if that would drown out all other speech by virtue of the corporation’s great economic advantages over the single citizen.

But as the kids say, I call bullshit! Corporations do not draw breath. They are the ultimate mental shell game. There is no there there. They exist as a magical spell to protect and enrich the most privileged individuals and to shield that de facto oligarchy from liability. If the corporation cannot pay its bills, then the executives and shareholders can walk away without individual liability (and now they can do this much more easily than individuals can in Chapter 7, thanks to corporation-friendly changes to bankruptcy laws resulting from successful lobbying by corporate shills). If corporations hurt real, living, breathing, and bleeding individuals, they can overwhelm their victims with their economic and legal advantages and, except in truly unusual circumstances, their executives and shareholders cannot be held personally liable.

If you have been following this case as it worked its way through the courts, then you know that this legal fiction of corporate personhood found its genesis in dicta (extraneous material in a legal ruling which is merely informative or explanatory, but normally has no precedential value) from an old Supreme Court case. The corporations spotted that opening and have been trying ever since to get the Court to unambiguously play Geppetto and turn their wooden carcasses to "real boy" flesh.

Bob Edgar of Common Cause stated in response to the decision:

This is worse than Bush v. Gore. It could be the worst decision since Dred Scott.

In his dissent, Justice Stevens wrote:

He went on to say:

If this decision stands, then what we will have is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It will be government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.