Rishell Guest Column: Power, money and our future

The Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was itself not as much a surprise as was the reduced attention it's received, considering the potential to affect our future. This ruling gave corporations the same First Amendment rights that the Constitution gives individuals. Corporations may now fund huge ad campaigns designed specifically to affect the decisions of the voting public. Ads during prime time TV would not be so expensive if all of us were not in some manner susceptible to that type of persuasion. Corporations have been more than a legal construct for some time, and this ruling enhances that status.

Historically the nation has had strong concerns about large concentrations of power whether by individuals or other entities. The colonial patriots rebelled against an autocratic king, but there was an added dimension. The tea dumped into Boston Harbor belonged to the East India Company -- at that time probably the largest commercial entity in the world -- and it had been granted an import monopoly by Parliament.

Concerns continued after the revolution. Thomas Jefferson speculated in correspondence whether or not Virginia would accept a draft of the new Constitution, the concern being that it lacked language stating there should be "No monopolies in commerce." They understood monopolies lead to concentrations of power.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln commented about corporations in a letter to a friend. He was horrified by J.P Morgan's sale of defective rifles to the federal army, profiteering at the expense of soldiers. Lincoln said, "…corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

The right of personhood for corporations has roots in the late-19th/early-20th century. In the 20 years surrounding the dawn of the 20th century, the majority of 14th Amendment cases before the Supreme Court dealt with corporate personhood. What a stunning irony that an amendment designed to protect the civil and political rights of former slaves from being taken away by any state, should then be applied to a non-human entity.

In 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act defined person or persons as including corporations. Section 7 states, "The word 'person', or 'persons', wherever used in sections 1 to 7 of this title shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country."

Candidates and elected officials already receive too much special interest money. With unlimited spending, corporations can dominate the marketplace of ideas. Individuals and small businesses will not be able to purchase an equivalent amount of "free speech." How much money will powerful industries like banking and big oil pour into campaigns? How will we deal with campaign spending by the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, some owned partially or entirely by foreign governments? And what rights will corporations want in the future?

During this 2010 session, the VA House of Delegates voted to shield a company, Crown Cork & Seal, from liability to asbestos-related health claims. The bill was written to apply to that one company alone. Disregarded was a body of law which establishes that when one company buys another, it also gains that company's liabilities. This would also have raised the costs for other companies, because fewer would be in the pool that pays out potential asbestos claims. Previously the bill had not been successful, but over a $100,000 and six lobbyists later, it passed in the House of Delegates. Fortunately, the Senate killed the bill in committee for this year. Each vote in any legislature, anywhere, is only as good as the individual representative's ability to withstand pressure and temptation, both usually finance related.

So when the Supreme Court decides a case, it doesn't mean the decision is right, it simply means the decision is final. There is hope for reversal. Remember some earlier shameful court decisions? Dred Scott v. Sandford (no Constitutional protection for slaves and their descendants); Plessy v. Ferguson (upheld racial segregation); and Kelo v. City of New London (expanded use of eminent domain). More importantly, remember the first two listed . . . and know that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission does not have to last forever.

Jeanette Rishell is a Manassas Park resident. She ran in 2006, 2007 and 2009 as the Democratic candidate against Republican Del. Jackson Miller for the 50th District seat in the Virginia House of Delegates.