Freedom Incorporated

Headline on CNN.com last week; “Pet Bear Kills Pennsylvania Woman.” Now there’s something you don’t see every day.

I don’t have much this week. Spent too much time working and not enough time raging at the world. There is one thing that drew my ire however. This past Monday marked the beginning of the new Supreme Court term, the first for newly confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In addition to the usual smattering of cases, the Court will issue a ruling that could fundamentally change the way political campaigns are conducted. If you thought the 2008 presidential campaign was expensive, wait until 2012.

The issue before the Court is whether or not corporations should have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on advertisements for or against specific candidates. The law currently disallows these ads 30 days prior to a primary and to 60 days prior to the general election. In an attempt to evade the law, conservative interest group Citizens United produced what they labeled a “documentary” about now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and attempted to run commercials promoting the film during the 30 day exclusionary period. At the time, the U.S. District Court for the the District of Columbia ruled that the commercials violated the law in that they were to be run within the 30 day period, and that the “documentary” clearly had no other purpose than to discredit Hillary Clinton. Citizens United appealed, and here we are.

The argument of Citizens United is that the campaign finance law violates their corporate right free speech. Since the Court has ruled in the past that when it comes to politics, money equals speech, their corporation should be allowed to spend any amount of money, at any point in time, to exercise their right to free political speech. It is widely known that two Justices agree with their position, and is suspected that three others do as well, making an uncapped 2012 campaign certainly possible - if not likely. But there is a flaw in Citizens United argument. A flaw so glaring it's difficult to understand how it could be ignored.

Justice Scalia believes that all campaign finance legislation is unconstitutional and should be invalidated, that people should be able to spend whatever they like in support or opposition to the candidate of their choice. On this point I would have to agree with him. The “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...” portion of the First Amendment refers primarily to political speech, and if money really is the equivalent of speech, as the Court has ruled it is, then people should be able to spend whatever they want on an election. Where we differ seems to be on our definition of a person.

I can’t believe I have to say this, but corporations are not people. They are not born, and they do not die. (In fact, they can exist in perpetuity.) They do not eat, they do not sleep, they do not procreate. They don’t watch football on sunday afternoon, they don’t pick up their kids from school promptly at 3:15 p.m., they don’t cry at movies and they don’t forget their wedding anniversary. Corporations are documents. They are agreements to conduct business in a particular manner. They are created by statute and can be dissolved by statute. They exist in no small part to remove responsibility from individuals and redistribute it amongst vast pools of money. They have no rights except those granted to them by the statute under which they were created and the State in which they operate. What Justice Scalia would like to do in this case is bestow inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, upon a piece of paper.

Reduced to its core, the argument is exposed as the absurdity that it is. People have rights. Paper does not. Acceptance of Scalia’s argument means that corporations are, for all intents and purposes, persons. Obviously this has the potential to go very wrong, very quickly. Do corporations then have the right to bear arms? Are they protected from cruel and unusual punishment? Can they be charged with crimes, like rape, or murder, or illegal possession of a controlled substance? If they are persons, created in the United States, are they then citizens? Do they have the right to vote? Can they run for office? Could Wal-mart be elected president? There is already enough foolishness tottering around Washington. Let’s not add to the steaming pile by transforming pieces of paper into people.

My NFL thoughts for Week 4:

The Green Bay Packers are the second most disappointing team in the league. And I’m not just saying that because my parents live in Wisconsin. How can you hold the most explosive player in the National Football League to 55 yards - and still lose the game?

The Panthers didn’t lose this week. Oh wait, they didn’t play this week either. My bad.

Does any team look more inept than the Kansas City Chiefs? No, the Raiders don’t count as a team. The state of Missouri is 0-8 so far this season. At least Michigan has only one terrible football team.

The Saints are off Week 5, but they will meet the currently undefeated New York Giants two Sundays from now. Against the Jets this week, the Saints proved they can get it done any way they have to, through the air, on the ground and with the defense. If Drew Brees and company defeat the Giants in Week 6, I’ll be looking for them to line up across from the Colts in the Superbowl in February.

Chargers punter Mike Scifres booted a 63 yard punt with about five seconds of hang time against the Steelers Sunday night. Note to Jerry Jones; pinch your pennies, get ready to raise that scoreboard.

Patrick Willis is the best defensive football player I have ever seen play the game, and that includes Ray Lewis. (I’m not old enough to remember Lawrence Taylor or Deacon Jones.) He seems to make every tackle, force and recover every fumble, and record every sack the 49ers make. He is so good, San Francisco could almost remove the other ten players from the field and not notice the difference.

My Superbowl Picks for Week 4: New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts

American Girl (a toy company producing dolls and doll accessories that come with a backstory) has released a “homeless doll” to add to its collection. The doll costs $95. At that price she won’t be homeless very long, will she.

Finally, some people (read “two guys in a basement with a fax machine”) are upset over a breast cancer awareness ad featuring a woman in a skimpy white bikini jubbling her way around a crowded pool party, ogled by men and women alike, with the phrase, “You know you love them, now it’s time to save them,” cut in amongst the frames. The criticism is that the ad is to risque and detracts from the seriousness of the issue. I’m going to have to disagree. I think this is brilliant. The purpose of the ad campaign is to get men to pay attention to breast cancer. Women already know that breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women age 20 to 49. But men don’t. And most of them don’t care. It’s had enough to get a man to take himself to the doctor, let alone encourage someone else to go. But maybe, if we can link health issues to something men really care about, like breasts in bikinis, they might at least remember to mention it to their significant other. Cancer is a ruthless killer. Fight it with any and every tool available.