Corporate $$: pay your money and take your choice

TWO YALE LAW PROFESSORS have stepped up with a relatively simple proposal to curb a flood of corporate political dollars that was certain to be driven by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that opened the gates on current restrictions. In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres said Congress could easily weaken the court's action by denying corporations with federal contracts from endorsing political candidates. They noted that it could be quite effective inasmuch as nearly 75 pct of the largest publicly-traded firms are federal contractors. (No mention of organized labor, but unions are so depleted these days they can hardly play in the same ring with the big guys.)

"If Congress endorsed our proposal," they said, "these companies - and tens of thousands of others - would face a stark choice: They could endorse candidates or do business with the government, but they couldn't do both. When push came to shove, it's likely that very few would be willing to pay such a high price for their 'free speech'."

The court's decision also laid bare the silly arguments by conservatives that justices should merely interpret the law and not engage in judicial activism. The Scalia court first decided the outcome of a presidential election and is back to give a huge opening for corporate support of candidates (read: Republicans).

So I'll leave you with this thought from dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens:

"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included the dearth of corporate money in politics."