A Few Words About the Latest Bone-head SCOTUS decision

Has the US Supreme Court taken a giant step toward ushering in the Brave New Corporo-fascist State?

Fantastic Cathy McKitrick story in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune, reporting on the US Supreme Court's latest bone-headed decision, which has had cable news pundits jabbering for the past 24 hours:

• Supreme Court ruling could rain money on races

Ms. McKitrick's masterfully crafted opening paragraphs provide the gist:

In a decision decried by some as akin to hanging a giant "for sale" sign on federal elections and hailed by others as a victory for free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court swept aside a decades-old ban on corporate and union spending to sway voters.
The 5-4 ruling is a "huge deal," campaign finance experts in Utah said, noting that it likely will mean substantially more money pouring into November's midterm elections, already being framed as a referendum on President Barack Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress.
The country's high court, which shifted to the right with then-President George W. Bush's two appointments, rolled back a 63-year-old law barring corporations and unions from buying ads that promote or attack federal candidates. It also dismantles a ban in the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act on issue-oriented ads by companies or unions 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
"It's a very substantial reversal of decades of law," said David Magleby, a dean and professor of law at Brigham Young University who has authored more than a half dozen books on campaign finance.
"It has the potential of allowing corporations -- for instance, a Microsoft -- to spend millions and millions in particular races," Magleby said.
That kind of mega-influence could dwarf a candidate's ability to fight back, Magleby added.

The New York Times has a strong editorial on the subject too, opining that "[w]ith a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century," and calling for immediate congressional action to "to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy":

• The Court’s Blow to Democracy

The SLTrib editors also provide a considerably less frantic thumbnail summary of the effect of this decision in a text box beneath Ms. McKitrick's writeup:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress cannot limit spending on elections by corporations, unions or other organizations. The decision leaves intact bans on companies and unions giving directly to candidates. [Emphasis added].

For those readers who are inclined to dig in deep, and refer to original sources, we helpfully provide a link to the High Court's decision right here:

• Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission

The above-cited NYT editorial drills down to what we believe to be the major flaw in this latest Supreme Court decision, i.e., the court majority's erroneous treatment of "artificial" entities (such as corporations) as the equivalent of "natural entities" (living and breathing people) for First Amendment purposes.

Justice Stephens provides an expansive analysis on this (and various other) of the court's various "errors" in a brilliant 90-page dissenting opinion (see pdf page 88 et. seq.), and falls just short of calling his his conservative High Court judicial colleagues "boneheads." It's a fantastically well-reasoned tome, actually, as turgid SCOTUS dissenting opinions go.

Still, it' s a mere dissenting opinion; and it therefore doesn't have the force of law. And in the months to come we'll have to come to grips with the political dynamite which our "activist high court" has dropped onto the national political landscape.

Incidentally, we believe this decision will likely have implications in future elections... right down to the local "dogcatcher race." Although the decision is framed as a limitation on the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the "absolutist" principle that First Amendment rights are broadly applicable to corporate entities would logically apply to local races too.

So what about it, gentle readers? Does this latest Supreme Court decision signal the inexorable decline of "one man one vote" in America? Has the US Supreme Court taken a giant step toward ushering in the Brave New Corporo-fascist State? Will federal and state legislatures succeed in limiting the ill effects of this new Judicial Legislation prior to the 2010 General Election? Is the extension of full First Amendment rights to faceless corporations actually a "good thing" for America? Will the airwaves now be filled with corporate-financed Boss Godfrey infomercials in the months prior to the 2011 Emerald City Municipal Election?

The world-wide-blogosphere eagerly awaits our readers' ever-savvy comments.

Have at it, O Gentle Ones.