Below is the first article from the Cornell Progressive to be published on the blog. It’s the editorial from the Progressive’s January 2010 issue.

On Thursday, January 21st, the Supreme Court overturned one hundred years of legal precedent by obliterating nearly all regulations on corporate spending in political campaigns. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that it was an obstruction of free speech to prevent corporations and unions from spending unlimited amounts of shareholder or member money to influence elections, namely through advertisements. The ruling predicates on the assertion that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment right to express their political opinions as individuals, and that restrictions on campaign spending amount to, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, “censorship to control thought.”

The case originated with a 90-minute smear documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” produced by conservative nonprofit Citizens United. The group sought to make the film available for cable on demand viewing shortly before the January 2008 Democratic primaries, while the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act prohibits political ads funded by corporations or unions from airing less than 30 days before a primary or 60 days before the general election. However, the right-wing activist Supreme Court seized on this case, using it as a launching pad to mount a full-scale attack on campaign finance laws, ordering lawyers on both sides to expand the scope of their arguments to the constitutionality of any corporate political speech. This command was given during an unusual September re-argument, a month before the fall Supreme Court term began; the recent decision was also issued on a Thursday, a day the court does not typically deliver these sorts of rulings, further illustrating its unusual eagerness to address this issue.

Unsurprisingly, the decision was condemned by Democrats and hailed by Republicans. President Obama issued an immediate statement, calling the ruling 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.” In contrast, House Minority Leader John Boehner called the decision “a big win for the First Amendment.” “Let the American people decide how much money is enough,” he said, celebrating the new ability of corporations to spend without limit, but calling for them to disclose the amounts they spend, as though the American people have some effective means of dissenting to corporate action. President Obama and the Democrats still have much work to do to demonstrate that they place the interests of citizens over those of corporations, but for Republicans, this decision only strengthens the already powerful bond between political and corporate power; it is clear that Republican candidates will benefit considerably more than Democrats from the new startling lack of regulation.

Corporations should not be granted the same rights as private individuals, not only because of the immense power and wealth so many possess, but also because of their indelible connections to the government that issues their charters and grants them economic privileges. There is absolutely no justification for allowing these creations of the state, with their consistently-demonstrated corrupting influence on our democracy, to empty their coffers to direct its politics; legal precedent throughout American history has reflected this fact. Unfortunately, that precedent has been thrown away like yesterday’s newspaper. It is clear that this Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with censorship or First Amendment rights; this was a decision designed solely to increase the ability of Republican candidates to spread lies and fear to elicit votes, a tactic that in recent memory has aided in ending Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign and most likely any chance of meaningful health care reform. Now with the financial backing of corporations, this strategy will only grow more widespread and more powerful in 2010’s midterm campaigns and beyond.

Granting corporations and their strongest political allies unchecked power to direct our future elections is a serious threat to our democracy and our nation, allowing for attacks on free thought far more grave than those the Supreme Court prohibited in this decision. Government of the people, by the people, for the people has never seemed more distant, and as long as an activist right-wing majority remains on the Supreme Court, that vision of America will continue to slip further and further away.