The Constitution was designed by the Framers to keep the centers of coercive power dispersed into the states (which could, and did take rights and privileges away from citizens at will). In the South, these centers were populated by landed planters (aka the slave power). In the North, these centers were populated by the very merchants you hallow.This is at odds with reality and the resulting convictions of the founding fathers -- the Constitution is so designed because those in government will take rights and privileges away from citizens, including merchants, whenever and wherever they can. Give me an example of American "corporate power," today, that does not involve the government. You can't; because wherever the state's arm doesn't reach, personal technology allows private individuals to publicly indict and chasten (as consumers) or economically undermine (as market competitors) organizations with incredible financial power.
Corporate power outside of the government? Have you been paying no attention to the health care debate?
The state is not the law. The law derives from the consent of the people. We implement the state as a means of enforcing the law, along with creating new ones. It is accountable to us every time we have an election. I trust them far more than I do a monopolistic board of directors, because even if my say is small, I at least have some say.Back in 1999, I cheered the Clinton administration's harrying of Microsoft until a friend offered this adage: Microsoft is a private organization and therefore accountable to the law; the state is the law, and ultimately accountable to no one. Be very careful about whom you pick to win a fight.
With yesterday's ruling, Microsoft no longer is permanently accountable to the law. It merely must wait until the next election cycle, in which it can buy up the legislators who will make the law they want. They no longer have to listen to legislators who make the law their constituents want.
Were you not around for "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"?You're making too many assertions without any evidence of how the rights identified in the SCOTUS decision -- corporate electoral advertising, including within 60 days of an election -- have actually affected the democratic process.