Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision

Is it not remarkable, dear Reader, that mere days after Republican Scott Brown upsets the U.S. Senate special election (and Obama Administration referendum), that the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark ruling, rolling back campaign finance and anti-corruption efforts? The case was two-fold, as far as we can tell, in its implications: first, it holds time-based bans upon corporate political advertising and politicking (namely, preventing those interests from advertising too near an election day); second, it frees corporations and other such interests to make direct contributions to political candidates, rather than filtered through special interest groups. The decision was leveraged upon the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that restricting corporations from doing the aforementioned activities was impinging upon freedom of speech.

This actually does have coherence, as we understand it: corporations are considered an individual under corporate law, legally on par with an actual living human being, such as yourself. So, in essence, yes, a corporation does have just as much of a right to contribute and politick for its candidate of choice as you; that they have vastly more money to throw around than you is really trivial. At least, it's trivial to the Supreme Court. The full implication of the decision perhaps did not sink into justices' thoughts as cast their votes. Let us explain:

Consider the organisation known as Goldman Sachs, everyone's favourite vampire squid. As a financial institution, Goldman can borrow an effectively unlimited amount of money from the Federal Reserve, and then turn around and invest that money into something which pays a guaranteed return. At present, much of that would seem to be Treasury Bills; in essence, Goldman Sachs permits the Federal Government to borrow from itself, but make it look otherwise, and make a profit at the same time. This cozy little arrangement, along with all the other cozy little arrangements Goldman has, seems to make a lot of people very angry. Now, let's say that a vociferous group of contenders for Congress run on a "let's shut down all the big banks" platform, and experience massive support from across the U.S.

The Lord's work would seem to be in jeopardy, no? At that point, is it not a good investment to borrow, say, $25 billion from the U.S. Treasury, and invest that in supporting the candidates who are on the "let's keep Wall Street bonuses flowing" platform? The 'return' off of that 'investment' is not necessarily quantifiable, but it is indeed qualifiable: Goldman Sachs continues to survive. That, perhaps, is the best investment that Goldman could have made with someone else's money.

We point out there is no longer any reason whatsoever that Goldman cannot do this exact manoeuvre during the 2010 Congressional elections. Nor, indeed, does anything prevent JPMorgan Chase from doing the same thing, or Citigroup, or Wells Fargo, and the rest of the too-big-to-fail crowd. Heck, the Federal Reserve System itself could start running advertising if it wanted to! Call us alarmist? Please feel free. But remember that there is nothing which will prevent this from happening.

If anyone notices how momentous this decision was, we have no doubt there will be efforts of dressing it up as a good thing; consider this hatchet piece from the Atlantic. However, in our opinion the Court has simply handed over near-total political control of the U.S. Government to large corporate interests on a silver platter. That situation is perhaps nothing new per se - consider Goldman Sachs' apparent ownership of the U.S. Treasury - but it is much, much more of the status quo, and additionally set in concrete. Going forward, we fear there will forever be a shrinking ability of small interests (e.g. individuals, small entrepreneurs, et cetera) in getting their message to their supposed representatives in Government. That could change, as an aside, if the apportionment lawsuit in Mississippi is actually successful, but the outcome of that case is far from certain.

What is certain is that the large corporations which will exploit this Supreme Court ruling will do so to the hilt, because the Depression puts their very survival at stake. Without even the most ineffective of legal restraint on their politicking, we would not be the least bit surprised if more and more high-level officials in the Government come from super-huge banks and large corporate interests, like the defence industry and healthcare, et cetera. Put simply, the sovereignty of the United States has been transferred, de jure, from the American Citizenry, to the largest and most powerful corporations. The Government must and will respond accordingly.

What this will mean for American Citizens trying to scrape their way through the Depression is fairly easy to predict. The average American will feel the pain, because he or she will be forcibly squeezed of their wealth, for the benefit of these corporate interests. The U.S. Government will continue to everything it can in order to reinforce the existence of those institutions which ethically should be left to die. The cost of these corporatist heroics will come in the forms of more bailouts, more Government largesse, higher taxes, higher inflation, and more destruction of the non-corporatised economy.

U.S. Politics: Massachusetts and the Fall of Obama

The U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts is over, and it seems that Republican Scott Brown has trounced the Democratic-hopeful Martha Coakley, 52 to 47, with 80% of the votes counted. We wonder where all the 'non-standard' voters went, notably the ones centred around the Libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy, but we can only assume his supporters were merely lying about supporting him. Undoubtedly, the Libertarians politely and neatly divided their votes between Ms. Coakley and Mr. Brown, in the noble interest of maintaining an entrenched two-party system, but we digress. As the Agence France-Presse states:

[Brown] pulled off a surprise victory late Tuesday, capturing the seat of the late Democratic icon Edward Kennedy in a stinging setback to President Barack Obama exactly a year after he swept into office.

Note the "stinging setback" comment; this is so very much a vast understatement, we can't help but giggle. Most immediately, it suggests the damage control efforts over the Democrats' face-plant in Massachusetts is already underway, because this was not just a set-back, in our opinion, but a major blow to the efforts of the Obama Administration to continue with its agenda - whatever that might be. If Senator-elect Brown makes good his promise to vote against the Obama mandatory healthcare proposal, it will cement the appearance of the Democrats as being not only non-responsible to their power base, but also impotent in the face of a Republican minority.

Senator-elect Brown's vote is vital in the mandatory healthcare, either in passing or rebuffing the legislation, so he will find himself very popular with many people when he arrives in Washington D.C. The Republicans will want him to vote against the mandatory healthcare bill; the Democrats will court him to honour Ted Kennedy's 'legacy' by passing the bill; lots of pretty, well-dressed people representing healthcare interests will give him bags of money, whilst Mr. Brown 'thinks' about his vote. Frankly, we do not envy him; that level of 'popularity' does not sit well on our conscience.

We also wouldn't be surprised if he's just another turncoat, as well, given the following quote:

"I never said I was going to do everything I can to stop health care. I believe everybody should have health care, it's just a question of how we do it."

Using our previous idea of all the people who want to be Senator-elect Brown's 'friend,' this statement can be understood in three different ways. First, a comment to his fellow Republicans, to not reject out of hand a concept - universal health insurance - just because the Democrats want it. Second, an olive leaf to the Democrats, indicating he's willing to listen to and compromise on their agenda and his own. Thirdly, a cue to the healthcare interests, that he can be bought for sufficient campaign contributions, fancy dinners, and expensive trips, et cetera. Which of the three is in process? Hmm, pick one, dear Reader, or perhaps all three; time will tell, when Mr. Brown takes his seat - or, as he put it, "the people's seat."

But Senator-elect Brown is merely the figurehead for a deeper trend ongoing in the Obama Administration: the rising realisation in Obama voters, that they have been unequivocally 'had,' taken for a ride, bamboozled, and so forth. Throughout several articles, describing the upset Republican victory, we see numerous mentions to "tides of anger" amongst voters, "propelling" Mr. Brown to his victory. Hmm, interesting word choices there, we think; especially since "anger" is quickly followed by "economic recovery," "healthcare," "bank bailouts," "automaker bailouts," et cetera. Could it be the American Citizenry is finally waking up to the cold, harsh reality, that Barack Obama the reformer was a fraud? Are they beginning to wipe the crusts of knee-jerk, feel-good, anti-establishment hysteria from their eyes, only to see Barack Obama, defender of the status quo?

The shocking turn-about of a quintessentially Democratic State (i.e. Massachusetts), in voting a Republican to its Senate seat, suggests this is indeed ongoing. Despite the spin-control which we are highly confident will arise, this blow is acute in its severity to the Democratic agenda, and symbolic for the American Citizenry's faith in the Obama Administration. For an example of that spin, consider AFP's comment, "a freshman president's party loses congressional seats anyway in his first midterm elections..." This is a misnomer, because the Massachusetts election was not a midterm; it was a special election, which necessarily turns into a referendum on the Government, and the Administration. This it was, and to us the results are conclusive: the Administration is losing standing.

The loss of faith in the Administration is not helped by the flip-flopping of one President Obama, on whether or not to personally support Ms. Coakley's flailing campaign. As memory serves, the White House insisted he wasn't going to visit Massachusetts, then it was announced he was, then he cancelled, and then finally he made an appearance, 36 hours before the polls opened. This does not make him seem a strong, capable, dedicated leader; the leader which his supports thought they were electing. Instead, they show him how he truly is: vacillating, feckless, and without an understanding of what is needed in a President to run an effective Government. Heretofore, that same Government has been a relatively docile and obedient one, too - if he cannot be effective with a Government tightly controlled by his own party, how will he appear when the Senate has an empowered, and dangerous, Republican filibuster? What about when the Congress goes up for midterm elections later on in the year, and the Democrats either loose their strong lead, or even become the minority party?

This, we think, is at last the first signs of what we predicted, as soon as Mr. Obama was sworn into the Presidency: he is the Herbert Hoover of the 2007 Depression. Both Presidents came into office extremely popular, and quickly suffered a massive economic calamity; Hoover was quickly regarded as being incompetent and ineffective in his treatment of the 1929 Depression, became a lame-duck, and left the Presidency after one term, in total disgrace. So to, we think, shall go the fortunes of Mr. Obama: the tides of popular opinion will turn against him, his party will lose control of the Government, and he will be, at the end of his single term, a disgrace. As this unfolds, we suspect the irony of this photograph will become iconic in the twilight years of the Obama Presidency (source):