Corporations Are ‘People,’ Too
By Bill Shein
November 16, 2009
“The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections.” – NY Times
JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I’m Jim Lehrer from PBS NewsHour, and this is the first of the 2012 presidential debates. Let’s welcome the candidates.
(President Barack Obama, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Sen. General Electric PolitiTron 9000, the titanium robot U.S. senator running as an independent, appear on stage to loud applause. Obama and Gingrich smile and wave, while Sen. PolitiTron flashes its red eyes playfully. They shake hands – and, delicately, with Sen. PolitiTron’s Articulated Grasping Claw™ – and move to their lecterns.)
LEHRER: Speaker Gingrich, thanks to the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC, corporations may now spend unlimited sums to elect their favored candidates and defeat those that stand in their way. No doubt that’s why Sen. PolitiTron, backed by billions from the Fortune 500, is here tonight. Did the Court’s conservative majority go too far?
GINGRICH: No, Jim, it didn’t. This is about free speech. For all people. And as you know, under current law, a corporation is a person.
LEHRER: A “person” who lives forever, is legally required to focus exclusively on making money, but who is not actually a citizen with a vote.
GINGRICH: True, but they’re good for our economy. And the alternative is a stifling of debate and an end to liberty.
LEHRER: Mr. President?
OBAMA: Well, could there be any greater threat to liberty and democracy than a government controlled by corporations and their robot servants? I mean, more than it is already?
LEHRER: Sen. PolitiTron?
POLITITRON: Jim, huge transnational corporations are not evil. They employ millions. They innovate. They create the iPhones and Cheez-Its and the other things that sophisticated advertising has convinced simpleminded humans they want and need. The president is just using scare tactics. Nothing I’m proposing threatens human liberty.
OBAMA (thundering): YOU LIE!
(There is a collective gasp in the auditorium. Robot supporters of Sen. PolitiTron glare at Obama with their bright red eyes.)
POLITITRON (pleasantly): Mr. President, I am not programmed to lie.
GINGRICH: I’d just like to add that –––
LEHRER: Sen. PolitiTron, did you just call human beings “simpleminded?”
POLITITRON: No.
LEHRER: I think you did, sir.
POLITITRON: Well, you heard wrong, Fleshy.
GINGRICH: Can I please get a word in?
LEHRER: “Fleshy?”
OBAMA: Look, as the Court held in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, “[t]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation … are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Besides, a corporation’s so-called “political ideas” seek only to maximize profit, which is bad for democracy. There is more to human life than maximizing profit.
POLITITRON: Whatever you say, Professor Nerdly. I refer you to my campaign slogan: “Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Vote Sen. General Electric PolitiTron 9000!”
LEHRER: But, senator, a corporation, as an artificial entity, has no vote in the democratic process. True?
POLITITRON (chuckling): Well, not yet.
(There is much whirring of brain-gears and gleeful flashing of red eyes from the audience.)
GINGRICH (frustrated): I’m still here, you know.
(An awful high-pitched noise fills the auditorium as POLITITRON turns to GINGRICH. Without a word, the robot candidate fires a massive blue laser from its mouth. Amid horrifying screams, the former speaker bursts into flames.)
OBAMA (now surrounded by Secret Service agents): Right. “Nothing that threatens human liberty.”
LEHRER (shaken): Well, I’m being told that’s all the time we have. We’re back in two weeks with another debate between the three, er, two major presidential candidates. And tune in next Monday for the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sen. PolitiTron’s running mate, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.
POLITITRON: Lloyd is doing God’s work, you know.
LEHRER: Thank you and good night.
—————————————————-
Bill Shein only resorts to robot gags when absolutely necessary.
Share
Reader Comments (11)
I think they are already on the court with their flashing red eyes and their laser zapping of the constitution in support of their politico-economic religion of the Supply Side Jesus!
Quite amusing, Mr. Shein.
BUT
I was more than a bit disappointed that in this quasi-Neanderthalic PaliNeoConic Era you did not bring a Sarah type into the debate. Or at least a Bachmanniac. A real blow to the Women's Movement, and a missed opportunity, IMO.
Think of the answers such types could have given your Sen. General Electric PolitiTron 9000. The thought makes my usually green eyes positively spark ... and redden.
Before you write your next columns, please dither a bit more thoughtfully.
Sincerely,
Mary
Mocking her will only encourage her, Mary! At least, that's my analysis of her "rise." ;)
That, and [INSERT ENTIRE TEXT OF RICHARD HOFSTADTER'S FAMOUS BOOK, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life." Which, interestingly, was published the same year that Palin was born. Hmmm.]
In all honesty/seriousness, that Palin is getting so much attention while cases like Citizens United -- potentially transformative change to how our democracy functions -- go largely unnoticed is more than a sign of the times. It may be a sign of the end times. Politics as diversionary spectacle, a modern bread and circus.
(Okay, that wasn't truly "in all seriousness." Sorry.)
Of course, I did tease the idea of future debates in the column. So, who knows. Perhaps we haven't heard the last of Sen. General Electric PolitiTron 9000. Maybe he'll/it'll run for governor of Alaska? I've asked folks on my Facebook page to help fill in Sen. PolitiTron's backstory. Check it out.
UPDATE: Of course what I mean is "Maybe he'll/she'll/it'll run for governor of Alaska?" My keyboard is not working well, and, um, it drops characters sometimes. Yeah. That's it. So you can, um, ignore Mary's message below.
I suppose it would be OK with you if the high court were to approve Unions to contribute to political campaigns but not corporations right? Them there would have been no need for imaginary people. foreigners and illegal aliens to give $200.00 each through groups like ACORN and others to pay for 84 million in sound bites for the Obama campaign. Money Obama promised he would not raise or use! Just so America could have the least prepared, least respected, least qualified and unproductive chief executive in our history!
Public financing of campaigns, my man Emmett. That's what we need. Get all private money out of politics.
But I think you're missing the point somewhat, and that's probably because I was just highlighting a few points of the pending case, and making some jokes, and I didn't get into all the details.
If the Court overturnes all limits on corporate spending, any corporation can spend, say $25 million? $100 million? More? Directly on TV ads in favor of a candidate or against one. What today is known under law as "electioneering communications." The wealth that private corporations have to spend dwarfs any spending that unions could come up with, to the tune of perhaps half a trillion dollars a year. That's right: I said "trillion." The Fortune 500's annual profit is upwards of $600 billion. And they'd be free to spend any amount at all to install the local, state, and federal officeholders they want. Right down to zoning boards in your town.
So, it's a false choice to imagine that letting corporations spend what they want on elections would somehow balance out union spending on elections. Not even close. What we'll end up with is absolute corporate rule and the end of the smidgen of real democracy we have left.
"Corporatism is Fascism"
"Of course, I did tease the idea of future debates in the column. So, who knows. Perhaps we haven't heard the last of Sen. General Electric PolitiTron 9000. Maybe he'll/it'll run for governor of Alaska?"
Pardon me? Did I actually *hear* you say 'he'll/it'll". Did you not hear a big sexist alarm go off after you wrote that? Should you not have said SHE'LL/he'll/it'll? Just because the "thing" is your creation, what makes you think you have the right to make Sen. General Electric PolitiTron 9000 either ONLY a "he'll" or an "it'll" ... and not a "SHE'LL"?
I would be careful here ... you don't want to get into trouble with a large, powerful segment of your readership for being so blatantly unPC, do you? (WARNING: SHE are woman, hear SHE roar!)
As for a possible spinoff series ... yes! What a great idea! Sort of like your romance trilogy.
Mary
@Mary - Actually, the "Unlikely Love" romance trilogy is already a quadrogy, if that's a word. And if I can get it done in the next few weeks, 2009 will see the fifth annual installment of this long-running series. Finally enough episodes for a TV miniseries!
Dear Bill Shein,
This is a closed letter for your eyes only.
(I hope anyone who has stumbled onto this site will do the honorable thing: respect my privacy and read no further.)
Spurred by your brave and candid admissions in your romance trilogy (soon to be a quadrogy) (and soon after to be a miniseries) I want to make a confession to you.
I have had a longstanding affair with the guy who Welcomes me when I sign on to my computer. The special warmth in his voice, the intimacy he conveyed ... well, the guy had me at "hello".
Was everything honkey dorey at first? You betcha! <wink> <wink> (I've got to stop reading "Going Rogue").
But then he suddenly began to exhibit signs of extreme jealousy and paranerd possession. Right in the middle of an IM or an e mail with some other guy(s), he would interrupt me and say "GOODBYE!" and I'd be summarily booted off my computer. Trying to reboot became a real hassle.
At first I tried to overlook his aberrant behavior, even feeling sorta touched by his ardor.
But eventually things got so bad between us that I finally had to resort to a drastic measure. I turned off the volume on my computer. I now found his "Welcome!" not only insincere but actually evil. His once warm voice had now taken on a threatening tone.
And that is how things stand between us.
Even as I write, I feel his menacing presence ... ready to cut me off in mid sen ...
@Mary - The next installment has been completed! Look for it next week. You'll see that my new(est) love has something in common with your method of dealing with your threatening ex. P.S. Can't we get you on DSL or something?
Oh, Bill Shein. I am SO looking forward to reading your final(?) installment in your quadrogy! Thank you for the heads up!
BUT
It is with a great degree of mortification and humility that I must issue a correction (or ... as Bill Shein puts it - an UPDATE).
Regarding my affair with "Welcome": HE was not the culprit I had assumed he was.
It was "Goodbye" who scurrilously scuttled our liaison dangerous. I had thought *Welcome* and *Goodbye* were one and the same ... entity. Not so.
Thanks to an e mail I received from my new friend, Anonymous, I learned that Goodbye had fallen head over heels in love with me (blush) and was determined to ruin my affair with Welcome. And Goodbye succeeded, due to my naivete and lack of discernment.
(Goodbye ... I think I hate you!)
But the good news is that now all may be mended. Welcome and I are seeing a Virtual Relationship Therapist and are well on the way to mending our tattered relationship. And just in time, too.
I think I'm pregnant.
Mary