The answer to the above question should be
obvious; every American citizen. Well, there are those who lose the right to
vote if they have committed a serious crime; and, even if they have paid for
their crime they are still penalized. Then there are those who find it hard to
vote because of long lines and hours that don’t fit around their work schedule.
Then there are those who have not been properly registered by whatever local
rules are in effect. And of course, some votes are worth more depending on
where you live. Then there are the votes that are lost because some local poll
worker screwed up or the software malfunctioned. Those are all matters that could
be easily fixed.
But there is another group that I am
thinking of that has a vote that I do not believe they are entitled to but get
a vote anyway. For instance, how about Yang Yuanqing? Mr Yuanqing has been
named “Asian Businessman of the Year” by Forbes Asia. He is the CEO and
chairman of Lenovo. Lenovo is the company that now makes what used to be the
IBM laptop. Mr Yuanqing I’m sure is a fine fellow but he is Chinese so it seems
logical that he should not have a vote in American elections.
Now remember a little thing called “Citizens
United” the declared that corporations are people. There are a lot of folk from
foreign countries who own American businesses and those business can spend a
lot of money helping folk get elected who will be favorable to their companies.
So, technically they do not have a vote but I would suggest in really that have
more influence on elections, a de facto vote, than many of our citizens.
I see this as just another piece of boneheaded
fallout from a super stupid decision by our Supreme Court.
Just a thought to consider.
Despite this unfortunate aspect of the Citizens United ruling, there is no instance of a corporation having a vote. So that is not a problem, unless this mistake in the ruling is compounded with another ruling.
ReplyDeleteNo, the basic human right of being able to speak out on important issues is not a "de facto vote' or anything like it.
-----
Another overlooked situations where votes just don't count at all has to do with the existence of the electoral college. This problem is very definite when you look at national elections. Due to the reality of Wisconsin being a "blue state", the vote of any Republican there just doesn't make one bit of difference at all. The same is true of the votes of Democrats in Texas.
I did not say corporations actually vote. But I stand behind the "de facto vote". Humans do have the right to speak out, that is where Citizens United screws up; corporations are not humans. I agree with those who say each shareholder should be able to vote one corporate matters before CEO's or Boards of Directors speak for them.
DeleteIf an organization wants to do that in regards to shareholders, that should be fine. But it should be up to the company itself: the government should not micro-manage it in this way and force it.
DeleteAfter all, it makes no sense to have laws to meddle to the point where unqualified people end up making decisions. Shareholders, anyway, vote with their feet. If they don't like the color of the logo, the fact that they closed a store in Oklahoma, or what people in the company say on controversial political issues, they can take their shares elsewhere.
You don't expect in a mom-and-pop grocery store that the bag boy have veto power over add copy in the weekly circular.
We have agreement that corporations are not humans. However, corporations do not speak. Not even one word. But the humans in them do.
The "blue" state of Wisconsin has a GOP guv, a 60% majority in the state senate and a 55% majority in the state legislature. If "the vote of any REpublican there doesn't make one difference at all"..it will, for the GOP majority
ReplyDeletehave their accountants busy redistricting so that they an
remain the 'ruling elite' in that unfortunate state.
BB: I was well aware of that, which was why I qualified it for national elections, i.e. the Presidential one. Wisconsin has been, and remained in the most recent election, deep blue. Just as Texas is as red as Hot Stuff.
ReplyDeleteAnd no quotes needed around "ruling elites'.
And I strongly disagree that it was a super-stupid decision. Citizens United overturned some rather fascistic laws which criminalized criticizing those in power.
ReplyDeleteIMO, it was a stupid decision, a political decision and probably unconstitutional. Nevertheless, we have it, and fortunately, after the last election, we note:
ReplyDelete"Allen Dickerson, legal director of the pro-business Center for Competitive Politics: "The major takeaway is that voters are still sovereign. The fact that you can spend money to get your message out doesn't mean that people will like your message."
I agree that the corporation = person part was very stupid. But I strongly agree with the free speech aspect.
ReplyDeleteAnd guess what? There have been absolutely no bad effects from the stupid part. Do you know of any?
Good quotation, BB.
I also should address this part:
ReplyDelete"There are a lot of folk from foreign countries who own American businesses and those business can spend a lot of money helping folk get elected who will be favorable to their companies"
Translating the "get elected" back to "speak out on issues" (because Citizens United actually keeps campaign funding restrictions in place).... a pesky thing, that First Amendment. The prohibition on censorship also includes speech made by foreign people... people that jingoists despise. And I am very happy with that. If we don't like what someone says, ignore them.
The Bill of Rights says that Congress can't censor. Among the many other 'exceptions' that people would like, but are entirely missing, is the exception that the person being censored is foreign-born or in another country.
(Many of those who want to overthrow the Citizens United decision specifically want to strip even Americans of their free speech rights if these Americans are associated with organizations that the overthrowers happen to have a distaste for).