Washington welcomes big money

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal to restrict corporations from making contributions to electoral candidates. In a split vote, the court found that restricting contributions from corporations is a violation of First Amendment rights. This decision overturns a more than century-old law that limited the amount corporations, unions and other organizations could use to fund political campaigns.

There were no surprises here: the five Republican-appointed justices overruled the four Democratic-appointed justices, citing that it was unlawful for Congress to establish such a law in the first place. The law in question was passed in 1907 under President Theodore Roosevelt in an effort to restrict the contributions from corporations, mainly geared toward the big businesses of the day: railroad companies and banks.

According to the majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, "The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech."

Actually, Kennedy, that's where you're wrong.

The history of corporate personhood - that is, corporations being legally represented as people - is a long and arduous one, so I'll spear all the minute details. But a quick history lesson on a couple of the more landmark cases is in order. In 1819, the Supreme Court heard Dartmouth College v. Woodward, a case dealing with the contract clause and its application. In short, New Hampshire was attempting to make Dartmouth a public institution, in which case the appointment of trustees would be given to the governor. Dartmouth didn't like this. Luckily for Dartmouth, the court agreed, upholding the College's original charter created before New Hampshire was accepted into the union. While not necessarily creating corporate personhood, it strengthened the contract clause, effectively making it harder for states to challenge corporations.

The next landmark case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. In all honesty, there is nothing too exciting about the actual case itself, which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. What makes this case so profound was one apparently underhanded remark. In a summary included in the case, the court reporter wrote the following: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

This court case took place in 1886. If you know your history then that means this case took place after the Civil War, and after the establishment of the Fourteenth Amendment, which helped redefine citizenship and the protections it entails. According to the court residing over this case, the Fourteenth Amendment applied and protected corporations in the same way it applied and protected former slaves, otherwise also categorized as people.

Ever since then corporations have taken to the courts for any grievance, held out this precedence, and slowly usurped more and more freedoms, to the point that, under the law, the corporate entity is a legal person.

So what swayed this Republican-majority to overturn a long-standing practice of limiting corporate contributions to electoral campaigns? The Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is not the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is how it's being applied.

As Justice John Paul Stevens correctly pointed out, "Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office."

President Obama was more than disappointed with the decision, saying that it "has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics" that will "drown out the voices of everyday Americans." He called upon Congress to find a legislative solution that will some how rectify the problem the court had with the old law.

What's the point though? Corporations will just burst through that door, holding the Fourteenth Amendment like a badge of honor. I guess they deserve it. They tricked us all.