Supremes give corporations same rights as real people.

Well, in my last blog one of the suggestions I made, with Constitutional issues in mind was limiting corporate meddling in politics. The day after I made that suggestion, the Supreme Court made it official, corporations now have the same free speech rights as individuals, throwing out nearly 100 years of precedent. Now I could whine and complain about the decision, but it would be a waste of time since it is the law of the land, same as Rowe v. Wade. So we grin and bear it.

The consequences have been pored over by the talking heads on cable 'news', how now corporations can spend as much money as they like for or against a specific candidate for public office. If this is not scary enough, the one issue none of the 'news' personalities has touched is, what of foreign companies? I will site Anheuser Busch as one example. Let us say the government wants to add a liquor tax or limit beer advertising. Budweiser can pull out all the stops with political ads against such measures and target specific candidates or politicians if they choose to. Or can they? Budweiser is wholly owned by Stella Artois, a Belgian company. What of foreign owned drug companies? It is not inconceivable that foreign companies can actually influence American politics and elections directly. Now one may say if the foreign company sets up a US company as a wholly owned entity, the money for the adverts would actually be spent by this shell company even though the cash would be coming from foreigners.

I don't think anyone could have envisioned this sort of possibility with this decision. The idea is you cannot give a corporation 'citizenship', although it appears the Supreme Court ruling may have just done that.

Here is a tidbit that makes my point more clear.

Consider EADS, a European Consortium based in Holland, with Spain and France holding shares indirectly in the company. EADS North America is a holding company for North American activities. EADS is THE European Aerospace giant, which includes Airbus. EADS was awarded a $35B contract via Northrop Grumman to build the KC-45 Tanker. Boeing cried foul and the contract is being reviewed and may be rebid. Now what happens with corporations being able to target politicians outright? Would it be fair if only Boeing could create adverts and not Northrop Grumman because of their ties to EADS? On the other hand should an European company with foreign government ties be given the same 'citizenship' as a US company? To suggest that European companies with state ties are not cause for concern is ludicrous.

I am afraid this ruling is going to create a quagmire in US politics.

My suggestion? Tax the spending these companies will make on political ads at 99%.