Friday, January 29, 2010


The means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely.

Exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action; exclusive possession or control; a commodity controlled by one party.

It’s time, my friends. We are at a crucial tipping point regarding our freedoms. We either empower ourselves and consume our information with a critical mind or we lose everything we once were. Corporations are banking on the idea that our votes, our opinions, and our purchasing preferences, can be bought. We must learn to question everything, to sniff out agenda, to develop a hunger for truth that cannot be sated with hate. If we arm ourselves diligently, we just might make it. We’re at terrible risk of losing our country to the highest bidder. Let me explain why.

The Supreme Court has overturned the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act banning the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. Since 1947, corporations have been banned from using their profits to endorse or oppose political candidates. Why? Because, without these restrictions, it’s a free-for-all of special interests. A town-square armageddon.

Big business has an unprecedented opportunity to ‘purchase’ legislation amenable to their needs. How does such a purchase occur? See the following examples.

Regular, old cash gets product kind of purchase:
Corporation buys seats kind of purchase:

Thing is, monopolies are prohibited in the physical marketplace, so why not here? Why not prohibit this less tangible, far scarier monopoly regarding the distribution of information? This is a monopoly of power. A monopoly that seeks to prejudice the mind. Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s say Atticus Finch would like to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. Unless he’s willing to get in the back pocket of a corporation, there’s no way he’ll have enough money to even get his name heard. The voters will never even know about Atticus Finch because the airwaves will be jam-packed with support for Big Corporation’s Candidate X. Poor Mr. Finch will be knocked out of contention before the race has even begun.

With this new interpretation, there is no more room for the average, or even the wealthy, non-corporation sponsored American in government. It’s just officially been priced out of the everyman’s reach.

The Supreme Court has decided that, for the purpose of buying a country’s enthusiasm, corporations have the same rights as individuals. So let’s see how The Declaration of Independence sounds with this new interpretation:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all CORPORATIONS are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among CORPORATIONS, deriving their just powers from the consent of the CORPORATIONS, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the CORPORATIONS to alter or to abolish it...”

I say if corporations are actually going to be considered citizens, how about we treat them as such, starting with getting rid of all those tax cuts? And what might this mean for those corporations existing beyond our country’s borders? We’re so worried about holding that line between us and Mexico, but what’s going to happen when some other country purchases a candidate? A seat in Congress, or the White House?

Here are some very prescient thoughts about this. The first, from President Obama: "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” And here’s a bit of the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

It’s hard to make the right decisions when we’re given only biased information. When we’re led to certain conclusions from which the media purchaser benefits. How will you know who to vote for? How will you know when something is true or false? And what if this logic is applied to all media? What goes next? The sale of the world wide web? Classroom education? There is a terrifying precedent being set here and that is this - your access to unbiased truth has been vastly diminished. And if this theft is allowed, the next theft will be greater and more broad because we have allowed the first. The Supreme Court has pushed us onto that slippery slope. Where we go now is up to each and every one of us. We have to put on the cleats of critical thinking, go out there and kick some cognitive ass.

Our poor Founding Fathers. They must be turning over in their graves.

No comments:

Post a Comment