Declaration of Corporate Rights
Chomsky begins by citing the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, which essentially gives corporations unlimited freedom of speech, just like your average American. That's right, a company has as much, if not more, freedom to speak their minds as you and me. He then brings in the 14th Amendment, and points out how it really wasn't used for the people it was supposed to aid (slaves), but was then used as an excuse to give businesses the same right, This doesn't make sense, and makes the audience realize how unorthodox it is. This law, that was meant to give liberated African Americans the same rights as everyone else and which didn't really help them, was used to help corporations. And they aren't even people. It's this absurdity that Chomsky highlights that makes the audience realize how ludicrous it is
I touched on how corporations might have more freedom of speech than us. Well, Chomsky is of the belief that they do. He mentions that "if General Motors invests in Mexico, they get national rights, the rights of a Mexican business" (98). Yet, if someone from Mexico comes to the United States, they can't get rights, because, as Chomsky points out, the courts have decided that "they're not persons" (98), even though the 14th Amendment makes it that they should. By contrasting the drastic differences in rights between a corporation (not even a real person) and actual people, the difference dehumanizes those who are neglected, and once again shows the absurdity of the system.
Buckley v. Valeo is another Supreme Court decision that greatly benefited corporations by declaring that "money was a form of speech" (99), therefore unlimited, and could be spent without any limits, which leads into the analysis of how these corporations are the ones who really influence elections, which is a sad truth. So, corporations fund elections, and by doing so, the candidate who wins will "give you privileged access", which means that they get their corporate lawyers on the inside who get to "write the laws" (101). You can probably guess who benefits from those laws. Candidates know that, because of the plethora of power and money and resources that big businesses possess, they are their best bet for victory. And they're going to repay the business by letting them on the inside to influence policy. Who cares about what benefits the people, make sure the laws benefit the corporations.
The evidence he cites are actual rulings from the Supreme Court, and when included in his argument about how corporations use their power to further their goals makes a lot of sense. It's simple logic. Although these laws don't outright say that they are meant to benefit corporations, it's pretty obvious they do, especially when considered in context. If looked at independently of the argument, the audience wouldn't think much of the evidence, but Chomsky wisely includes it in his argument, and it makes a lot of sense. And by pointing out how corporations are given more rights than living, breathing people, it makes the audience angry. These entities, these things, are given more rights than us.
I agree with the frustration in that corporations have a big say in elections and policies that should be limited as it seems they are given more rights than we are. The issue with the 14th Amendment is absolutely absurd in that what seems like a right granted for the aid of slaves was really for the aid of corporations, same goes with General Motors issue with Mexico and people from Mexico coming here, the ideas restricting them from being allowed in the U.S. is dehumanizing and reinforces the lack of acceptance in today's society. Chomsky definitely utilized his evidence in a manner that opened the audience's eyes and made them realize the many flaws in modern government.
ReplyDeleteI definitely understand the absurdity that you point out in Chomsky's argument. It is surprising itself to see how he points such an iconic and glorified aspect of American history to another principle evil of the "Masters of Mankind." The 14th Amendment itself, I think, may be too old and rooted in American history to have been founded with substantial considerations of corporations in mind, but how you point out that Chomsky reaffirms this through the court cases he presents... it all really is just saddening. I personally feel that Chomsky has shown me that America today is just a great big bag of irony- irony that not everyone is allowed to vote in the land where one went to have their voice heard, and irony that the land of opportunity is essentially controlled by those seeking to take away opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI remember learning about the laws and regulations restricting the amount of impact corporations have during elections in my AP government class. Although I don't remember all of it, I do remember how blind sided I felt when I learned of how when corporations fund/sponsor elections and their candidates get elected, they then have more of a say in the policies the elected candidate proposes. Lucky for us, there are also good corporations with good morales that also sponsor and fund candidates which is another reason why it is nearly impossible to pass a law in congress. I couldn't agree more with our closing statement on how by pointing this out it is triggering emotions of anger in his primary audience. I think that had been Chomsky's plan all along, to piss of his audience enough to take action.
ReplyDelete