The image above is from Universal Studios Orlando, on a bridge in the Universal Studios section of the Park, looking at the Islands of Adventure section of the Park, where the Harry Potter theme park resides. The bridge is perhaps 30 feet long, concrete, and otherwise not noteworthy. The .50 cent trinket above was noteworthy because it begged the question of why, in a park that charges hundreds of dollars for one day for a family of four (with express passes), does it have a .50 cent lens to look through on a bridge?! The answer: because they can, and will, make money over time on that slab of concrete in a way that they otherwise wouldn't without it. One quarter at a time, they will do everything possible to empty your pockets of all currency. As they should. That is, and always has been, the foundation of capitalism.
The message being portrayed by the media is that OWS is about Corporate Greed. Corporate greed is a redundancy, by definition. It's like calling rain wet or snow cold. Corporations are supposed to be greedy. The people who run and manage corporations have a legal duty to make shareholders money. If they don't try to make as much money as possible, they are subject to legal action by the shareholders. Really. They are supposed to be greedy, so please stop with the corporate greed tag. It's naive. The real issue that OWS should focus on -because someone better, and soon - is limiting the amount of money corporations can infuse into political campaigns.
A long time ago - longer ago than I can believe - my first year Constitutional Law Professor - identified campaign finance reform as one of the most pressing issues facing our country. I heard that as my eyes involuntarily closed. It was boring stuff in my mind. How could that be the most important issue we face? As it turns out, she was a visionary.
Corporations have learned that they can increase profits by buying influence in politics by donating large amounts of money to campaigns. And both Democrats and Republicans engage in this war-chest building. Most corporations even hedge their bets on the winner, by contributing to multiple candidates. Candidates can't win large-scale elections without huge sums of money, so they need those contributions to get into office, and reciprocate the favor by protecting large corporate donor's interests. The Presidential campaign of 2012 may feature the first billion dollar campaign by both parties, taking contributions to a entirely new level.
The brilliance of our country lies in its three branches, and the separation of powers between the three: The legislative is supposed to convey the will of the majority by virtue of being elected by the majority; the judicial is supposed to protect the rights of the minority by virtue of interpreting the Constitutional rights afforded to all persons. The executive, meanwhile, runs the show.
Capitalism and our democracy used to exist in harmony. Corporate contributions, on a billion dollar scale, have changed that now by rendering elected candidates beholden to the corporations who finance their candidacy rather than the very people who cast the votes. The legislature no longer represents the majority - it often represents the corporations that finance the members' campaigns. This impacts us all - no matter your politics. Herein lies a very grave problem indeed, mostly because it is no longer a problem that can be easily fixed.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in the Citizens United decision that the government cannot ban
political spending by corporations in candidate elections, because such a ban violates the First Amendment, which extends to corporations. This has opened the door to nearly unlimited spending in elections, resulting in a slide that threatens our very democracy, as the four dissenters in Citizens United warned. While this is perhaps an over-simplification of the 180+ page holding, the decision leaves little room to legislate campaign contribution reform. Unless the Constitution itself is amended.
Donna Edwards and John Conyers have proposed doing exactly that. Their proposed Constitutional Amendment would read as follows:
“Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.
“Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”
The problem with passing such an Amendment? Congress has to vote for it, and most of its members won't because their largest donors are the corporations whose influence such an amendment seeks to limit. It's a vexing, and seemingly circular, problem.
The solution lies with the people. One of the great attributes we have as a people is that we have always galvanized ourselves against threats to our Country. This threat comes from within, but can be conquered. So, OWS, focus and consolidate your messages, because they all coalesce in the same place: We won't vote for anyone who bows to their corporate donors, and better yet, we demand a Constitutional Amendment assuring that Congress represents the people, not corporations. It can happen, and maybe OWS is the start. But please, stop with the message of corporations making too much money. That's not the problem; it is simply the inevitable result of no longer having a legislature that looks out for our interests.
