The Corporate Mad Dogs of Citizens United
As feared, our people's democratic authority has been dogged nearly to death by the hounds of money in this election go 'round, thanks to the Supreme Court's reckless decree in the now-infamous Citizens United case.
That rank political power play by five black-robed judicial partisans unleashed the Big Dogs of corporate money to bite democracy right in the butt this year, poisoning our elections with the venom of unlimited special-interest cash. But there's also been another, little-reported consequence of the malevolent Citizens United decision: It has unleashed mad-dog corporate bosses to tell employees how to vote.
Prior to that 2010 Court ruling, top executives were barred by federal law from using corporate funds to instruct, induce, intimidate or otherwise push workers to support particular candidates. No more, thanks to the five Supremes. Having been given a legal pass, bosses have openly and aggressively conscripted employees to be political troopers for corporate-backed candidates.
For example, CEO David Siegel of Westgate Resorts, a major peddler of time-share schemes, warned his 7,000-strong workforce against voting for Obama. To do so, he wrote in a letter to each of them, would "threaten your job." Obama, Siegel declared, planned to raise taxes on multimillionaires like him, which would give him "no choice but to reduce the size of this company."
Likewise, Dave Robertson, president of the Koch brothers' industrial empire, notified 30,000 workers that they would suffer assorted "ills" if they helped re-elect Obama. In case that message was too subtle, Robertson helpfully included a slate-card of Koch-approved candidates for them to take into the polling booth.
Of course, corporate chieftains say they're not making threats — just suggestions. As Boss Siegel disingenuously put it: "There's no way I can pressure anybody. I'm not in the voting booth with them."
But, of course, he can see (or be told by watchful managers) if any employee dares to sport an Obama campaign button, bumper sticker or lawn sign. And he can find out if any rebellious worker has gone to a Democratic Party event, volunteered in the wrong campaign or made a donation to Obama (now there's a chilling irony — under Citizens United, Siegel can secretly shovel a million bucks or more straight out of the corporate treasury into an anti-Obama campaign group, but a regular person's $200 donation has to be disclosed for all to see, including the boss).
So, sure, this is America, where we're all equal as citizens — you, me and the Fortune 500. And don't forget that you're perfectly free to defy the guy who can fire you for whatever reason he makes up — or for no reason at all. Good luck with that.
For a rich example of unbridled boss power in today's political process, harken back to August, when Mitt Romney appeared on a stage with a group of Ohio coal miners arrayed behind him. "I tell ya," the clueless candidate cheerfully exclaimed, "you've got a great boss."
That would be Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, who'd previously held a $1.7 million fundraiser for Romney. But if Mitt had just turned around and seen the scowls on the soot-smeared faces of the Murray miners, he would've had a clue that they didn't quite share his enthusiasm for their "great boss."
One reason for their grumpiness is that they hadn't volunteered to be there, but had been directed by Bossman Bob to attend. Also, Bob was docking them a day's pay for "taking the day off" to serve as stage props for Mitt's campaign. In effect, they were compelled to donate to the Republican. That'll make you grouchy.
As uncovered in an investigative report by The New Republic, such involuntary support is routinely demanded from the salaried employees of Murray Energy. They get hit up again and again for donations to Romney and such other designated candidates as Sens. Rand Paul, Scott Brown, Jim DeMint, and David Vitter.
Murray himself sends dunning letters to employees' homes, specifying to each one how much to give and instructing them to send their checks directly to corporate headquarters. Staffers there maintain a list of those who did as told — and those who didn't. "If you don't contribute, your job's at stake," one employee bluntly explained. "There's a lot of coercion," he adds, "They will give you a call if you're not giving."
Indeed, Murray deploys his lieutenants to squeeze the laggards — as the boss put it in one letter to them last year: "Please see that our salaried employees 'step up,' for their own sakes." And, in another letter this March, he pointedly named names: "I do not recall ever seeing the attached list of employees ... at one of our fundraisers."
After Romney's "great boss" statement, he added that Murray "runs a great operation here." Yeah — a political shakedown operation by the 2012, court-sanctioned, corporate version of political bossism. If you needed another reason to support a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, there it is.
CONNECT














10 comments on "The Corporate Mad Dogs of Citizens United"
October 31, 2012 6:37pm
The Citizens United decision was based on the idea that "People have free speech, a corporation is an association of people, ergo corporation has free speech." How wacky is that? But if you want to follow it, then think about "association." I could almost support it IF the law was that a corporation had to poll all its employees and shareholders and any political contributions had to support parties/ causes in the same proportion as the results. You suddenly wouldn't hear too much from the big industrial companies....
November 05, 2012 3:19pm
AND the same should be said for Unions AND all political parties ? !
October 31, 2012 10:04pm
JOHN:
A corporation is a fictitious legal entity, not a person. Sure, it's made up of individual persons,under the control of the top brass, but I don't think it fits the Founders' idea of personhood. Since this legal fiction is a business structure designed to maximize profits and limit liabilites, it stands to reason that the corporate heads would spend unlimited amounts of money to further their own interests in a general election. And if we don't know it by now, the interests of a profit-maximizing corporation are NOT always in the interest of the country at large. In fact, it may seldom be so.
And spending huge amounts of money to further a business interest alone should not be viewed as "free speech" the Constitution should protect, even if all the members of the corporation somehow have the same convictions, a virtual impossibility. I think, no matter the outcome of this election, there are enough disgruntled voters who are tired of being besieged by limitless political attack ads, month after month, that there may be a push for a constitutional amendment to rectify this reckless and irresponsible decision by the conservative Supreme Court. They've brought shame and dishonor to a once-revered institution.
October 31, 2012 2:55pm
Will the Red-State yahoos vote for a constitutional amendment that wouldn't favor their 1% masters?
Hightower is right on the target, as he usually is, in his folksy way. Keep up the good work!
I still feel amazed, long after the crime, that the conservative Supremes could decide that corporations were people and that money was speech. It's mind-boggling. And the Republicans railed against "activist judges," but I heard nary a word of criticism from them about "Citizens United." One can easily be tempted by the Mother of All Conspiracy Theories if you contemplate the Supremes' handing the 2000 election to Jr. Bush, and his determined wrecking of our federal budget, his appointments to the Supreme Court, culminating with the Supremes giving the go-ahead to salivating billionaires to buy their way to a takeover of every branch of the national government.
They don't really want a smaller government, just a government that's subservient to their wishes.
I remember reading about a small agency head during the Reagan administration who wound up going to an analyst with a truckload of emotional problems. He was being paid a handsome salary but told not to do anything, not to regulate anything, and he passed each day with his feet on his desk, reading one novel after another. (Not making this up, but I forget which agency it was.) That's what Republicans want in a national government, just a do-nothing bureaucracy directed by chosen friends who will go through the motions but "stay out of the way." After all, Reagan had said, "government's the problem, not the solution."
One finds echoes of that thought when Romney says, "government doesn't create jobs." What the hell did he think FDR did during the Great Depression? The CCC, the WPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority? Of course, we know most of those jobs were temporary, but they provided incomes to families that were on the brink of starvation.
Republicans do everything they can to make government inefficient when they're in control. Then you get directors of FEMA with no experience who are told "you're doing a heckuva job" while thousands were sheltered in a football stadium in New Orleans after Katrina. (Now that same discredited director is criticizing the President for reacting "too soon" to Sandy.) Unsafe toys from China, drugs from Big Pharma that caused strokes and heart attacks, produce with viral contaminants. Yeah, our "protective" and "regulatory" agencies did a "heckuva job" under Bush, didn't they? (And they're still under-staffed and under-funded today.)
Nothing like a useless bureaucracy, huh? Shrink 'em till they're hardly on the horizon, that's the Republican way. Stop protecting the consumers! Stop regulating the abuses of the abusers! Get out of the way! And stop making us pay income taxes! Don't you know who we are?
October 31, 2012 5:17pm
It is amazing how conservatives will vote for people who hate goverment, then complain about the poor goverment services they receive. Why would someone hire a vegetarian the run a sausage factory then complain about the quality of the sausage.
October 31, 2012 11:50am
I am waiting for the headline :
"The Socialist Mad Dogs of The White House" or "The Liberal Mad Dogs of Nation of Change". Ooops , "Progressive Mad Dogs of _________ " . You fill in the blank .
October 31, 2012 1:48pm
Are you getting a shot of adrenaline when you come here to stir the pot? Shouldn't you be working?
Everyone knows which side of the wealth divide you're on, so you're excused from further patronizing missionary work among us Socialist Mad Dogs.
We're incorrigible, so stop wasting your time.
October 31, 2012 10:51am
I still think we should make vote buying legal. Instead of a stick, workers would at least get a carrot. I'll bet a miners vote in Ohio would be worth at least $10,000 this year. Think about the stimulus that would be for the economy rather than for the media conglomerates.
October 31, 2012 10:20am
I remember as a small boy an injured Chipmunk was in the corner of the garage and when I went to it to help it it thrashed in self defense. This might be a lesson those bosses might want to hire some extra body guards when they threaten an employees job because I didn't vote their way. I would have rear view mirrors attached to my glasses.
October 31, 2012 5:19pm
That is what happened to the French nobles.