Having lived in Santa Clara County for my entire life I have come to recognize just how diverse and unique this place really is. Besides being at epicenter for booming dot.com startups and innovative technology, the Silicon Valley is a multicultural, melting pot with people settling here from around the globe. The entrepreneur spirit has flourished here since its founding and corporations have marked their territory across the West Coast.
Recently, while watching Stephen Colbert’s, “The Colbert Report,” I learned something new and startling about the Valley’s history that is still being hashed out in the Supreme Court today. The Supreme Court case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad of 1886 determined much more than the state of California originally set out to. New state legislation ruled that the railroad company could no longer subtract mortgage expenses from their state tax, a right guaranteed to state citizens but not private corporations.
Before reading the ruling, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite announced that “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 opinion that it does” according to an article published on http://www.ratical.org.
Due to the negligence of the court’s reporter who misinterpreted Justice Remick and wrote the courts findings – “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” – the ruling inadvertently gave corporations the same rights as people. As discussed on the “Colbert Report,” the implication of the ruling raises many questions including, “Are corporation’s people too?”
Well, today the Supreme Court Case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, addresses a huge component from the 1886 outcome. If indeed, corporations are in fact “people” and are granted the same rights, they too would be allowed to contribute to political election campaigns – perhaps the most frightening implication of the ruling.
Could you imagine Republican and Democrat candidates financially backed by corporate machines with unlimited funds? Any corporation willing to fuel a campaign would benefit in return if their cash helped marginalize the opposition and win the election. This is not democracy at work. It is a horrendous attempt to infiltrate and legalize capital-run elections where democracy fails and the people become second-class citizens to corporations.
This was the unfortunate realization I came to while watching Colbert that night. My forward thinking view of the Silicon Valley was tainted. But I guess I’ll just have to wait to hear how the current case goes to establish to what degree the mistake of that 1886 reporter has on American law.
Due to the negligence of the court’s reporter who wrote the courts findings – “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” – the ruling inadvertently gave corporations the same rights as people. As discussed on the “Colbert Report,” the implication of the ruling raises many questions including, “Are corporation’s people too?”
Well, today the Supreme Court Case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, addresses a huge component from the 1886 outcome Morrison Remick Waite announced that “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. If indeed, corporations are in fact “people” and are granted the same rights, they too would be allowed to contribute to political election campaigns – perhaps the most frightening implication of the ruling.
Could you imagine Republican and Democrat candidates financially backed by corporate machines with unlimited funds? Any corporation willing to fuel a campaign would benefit in return if their cash helped marginalize the opponent and win the election. This is not democracy at work. It is a horrendous attempt to infiltrate and legalize capital-run elections where democracy fails and the people become second-class citizens to corporations.
This was the unfortunate realization I came to while watching Colbert that night. My forward thinking view of the Silicon Valley was tainted. But I guess I’ll just have to wait to find out how the current case goes to establish to what degree that 1886 reporter had on American law.