Corpocracy: Has The Supreme Court Opened The Door To Our Future Government?
In this week’s landmark decision, by the Supreme Court on campaign financing, one may argue that in their precedent setting decision the Court has opened the door to a new political party and to a new form of American Government?
In stating that basically corporations are people too, the Court has set America on the path to Corpocracy.
Corpocracy, or Corporatocracy, is a form of government where corporations, conglomerate or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country. As much as the “right” rants against the Obama Administration taking us down the path of socialism, Corpocracy is considered to be a form of fascism.
Corpocracy has two factors: campaign finance and special interests, also can include government ownership.
Corporations provide financial support to competing political parties and major political party candidates. This would allow corporations to hedge their bets on the outcome of any election so they are assured to have a winner who is en-debted to them. As politicians are increasingly dependent on campaign contributions to become elected, their impartiality on issues which have corporate interest is compromised.
I believe this is far from what our “Founding Fathers” envisioned when they wrote the Constitution.
Under a Corpocracy, former corporate executives could be appointed as powerful decision makers within government institutions. They would be in charge with the regulation of their former or future employers which would lead to regulatory capture. Rules for lobbying would be a thing of the past.
Those who dismiss the Corpocray theory will say the only way it is possible is if it were legal to buy the votes of our politicians and that is illegal. However, under the terms of at-will employment, corporations can require their employees to vote certain way in exchange for (continued) employment.
It does not take an overt effort to buy a politician’s vote. Making a substantial donation to a certain politician’s campaign can be seen as a signal that the money is there if they vote in a way the corporation desires. Conversely, the money could be donated to an opponent if the vote does not go the way of the corporation.
President Dwight Eisenhower even saw fit to argue against the strengthening corporacy and the evils of such a government. I join him in that argument.