I like the prophetic humorous bent of a recent article in Sojourners Magazine by Bill McKibben, "Corporations are people, the Supreme Court insists, and hence have the right to dominate our democracy with their money. Which means that the Supreme Court has decided it's really, really Supreme—it doesn't get much more Godlike than manufacturing new people. In fact, this may be the first attempt since Adam's rib surgery."
This week the Supreme Court takes up Montana's constitutional appeal to keep our state's rights to regulate corporate takeover of our election funding. Why is Montana taking on this issue on behalf of our citizens? States' rights are the surface issue. The fundamental issue is morality.
Last week former governor Brian Schweitzer was interviewed on Yellowstone Public Radio's "Home Ground." He did a good job of summarizing corruption that plagued Montana when, a century ago, big money overpowered the rights of real people.
In his words, "… a miner named William A. Clark came upon a massive copper vein near Butte. It was the largest deposit on earth, and overnight he became one of the wealthiest men in the world. He bought up half the state of Montana, and if he needed favors from politicians, he bought those as well. In 1899 he decided he wanted to become a United States senator. The State Legislature appointed United States senators in those days, so Clark simply gave each corruptible state legislator $10,000 in cash, the equivalent of $250,000 today." The U.S. senate eventually kicked him out when it learned of the bribes. In 1912, following decades of turmoil, a successful ballot initiative banned corporate money from election campaigns and required financial transparency. This is the Montana law now to be dismantled by the federal government in the "Citizens United" Supreme Court case.
It seems the people of Montana were reading their bibles back in 1912. Interestingly, there are many references to the classic issue of the rights of money-backed power versus human rights in the New Testament. Jesus' many prophetic utterances often apply directly to this issue, such as, "you cannot serve God and mammon," (Matthew 6.24 and Luke 16.13). John the Baptist preached a gospel of repentance from mixed worship of both money and God like this, calling people snakes who resisted "bearing fruits of repentance." When they asked what they should do, he said, "Let those who have two coats share with those who have none." (Luke 3.4-20). Either we trust money and greed to determine our economy, or we trust God's compassion and interest in economic justice for all. Our state's history is solidly on the side of citizens, not "citizens united." Our traditional moral sensibilities along with the Bible's repeated references to God being on the side of the orphans, widows, landless and poor Should make this issue resolve itself. Seldom are controversial issues so clearly resolved by simple literal Bible reading.
Republicans usually prioritize Biblical morality. It's baffling to me that prominent Republicans are confused on this issue. Can they keep a straight face while reading and refuse the literal meaning of scripture? Do they really think corporate executives have inadequate free speech rights as citizens like the rest of us, so must have additional personhood rights of their corporations to exponentially multiply their power of speech over the rest of us? Under this ruling, corruption continues — sanctioned and covered up by the Supreme Court.
People in the rest of the country might be feeling confused about whether corporate rights should exceed citizen rights. For many of us in Big Horn County, though, it's clear that people, not big money, should control our legislative process. How else will the rights and interests of those of us who own a Bible, but don't own a gold mine ever prevail?
The following comments and links are only in the blog edition, not in the paper:
Most shocking to me was the secrecy provision of the Supreme Court's finding of citizens united. This provision alone should be cause for overturning. Shouldn't we all have a right to know exactly which corporations and individuals are spending millions in attack ads to influence elections -- and what their agendas are? That was a key provision of the Montana anti-corruption legislation in 1912, which the Supreme Court's misguided decision would overturn.
The Christians began to use the name of Mammon as a pejorative, a term that was used to describe gluttony and unjust worldly gain in Biblical literature. It was personified as a false god in the New Testament.{Mt.6.24; Lk.16.13} The term is often used to refer to excessive materialism or greed as a negative influence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/an-invitation-to-keep-money-out-of-politics.html
Governor Brian Schweitzer's editorial that prompted his interview on Yellowstone Public Radio. This is the story of wealthy financier miner William Clark, who bribed his way into the US Senate from Montana.
Clark "won" the "election," but when the Senate learned about the bribes, it kicked him out. "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale," Clark complained as he headed back to Montana.
Nevertheless, this type of corruption continued until 1912, when the people of Montana approved a ballot initiative banning corporate money from campaigns (with limited exceptions). We later banned large individual donations, too. Candidates in Montana may not take more than a few hundred dollars from an individual donor per election; a state legislator can't take more than $160. And everything must be disclosed.
Paul Krugman: We Could End This Depression Right Now
The Nobel laureate talks about Washington, Europe and the bizarre alternate universe inhabited by deficit fear-mongering media and political elites.
E.J. Dionne Jr. a columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He writes in Sojourners Magazine on the obvious citizen rights violations by Supreme Court's citizens united ruling, with the religious implications only hinted:
http://sojo.net/magazine/2012/06/bizarre-and-peculiar-ruling
This is one obvious wrong of government policy. Our broken two-party political system may very well leave it unchallenged. Montana's initiative this week is one of several options that may very well help restore sanity to an activist Supreme Court.
Can our politicians address the burning issues of the people of our nation instead diverting our attention to issues that inflame and divide us? Here are some real challenges troubling people across the nation but concentrated in Big Horn County, that, if addressed rationally, could build our nation's strength and revitalize our families. Unfortunately, the extremist base of the Republican party including Romney, and most Democratic politicians including President Obama, won't touch these issues.
AlterNet / By Louis Ferleger and Jacob M. Magid
How to End the Nightmare of Jobless America
Louis A. Ferleger is a professor of history and director of the graduate program at Boston University. Jacob M. Magid is completing his master's degree in economics at Boston University
"In Henderson, when a new company moves to the area, the Henderson-Vance County Economic Development Commission schedules a meeting with representatives from local community colleges to determine what programs might be needed to support the enterprise. At Vance Granville Community College, administrators work on instituting and implementing customizable training services for the company's workforce; they also created a new five-year program in which students can earn a high-school degree and an associate degree simultaneously. As a result, high school drop-out rates have fallen and new bio-tech labs have been established.
Business-government partnerships are only one part of what needs to be done to reduce the staggering number of dead zones."
--
David Graber
Hardin, MT 59034
email graberdb@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment