The United States Inc.

By Gary Iribarren

The American electoral system is looking more like an auction hall. After the five-to-four vote by the Supreme Court three weeks ago that gave American corporations the right to unlimited political campaign spending, the phrase "putting your money where your mouth is" rings differently in my ears.

President Obama labeled the ruling as "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power everyday in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans," a rich comment from a man who was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his own campaign.

Nevertheless, President Obama's words illuminate the fact that this is neither a blue nor a red matter. Both sides will lose out from the inevitable damage this ruling will cause, because elections will now be decided by the highest bidder.

With the Congressional midterm elections looming in November, the Supreme Court majority has alienated American voters and given interest groups the legal means to decidedly affect the outcome of crucial Senate races.

The electoral system was not the paragon of integrity before this ruling. Certainly the system requires work, but we can save that spiel for another day. Most concerning is the possibility that corporations may soon have the right to directly fund individual candidates. Let us rewind for a second before discussing this.

The question at hand before the ruling was whether corporations should be permitted to spend money on political campaigns from their own treasuries. The ruling has now opened the door to corporations, non-profits and labor unions to spend without limits through what are called independent expenditures.

These are not direct contributions to candidates but separate funds to run advertisements and other campaign activities.

Before the ruling, corporations had to funnel spending on elections via political action committees, or PACs. Though some may argue that these organizations only nominally separate corporations from their campaign funding activities, PACs are legally distinct from their corporate sponsors.

With the new ruling, however, the levy has been broken. It could be only a matter of time until a new ruling permits the direct financing of candidates by corporations.

Pardon me if I sound like I'm prophesying from a cave in Patmos, but just imagine! The President of the United Corporations of America!

The Supreme Court majority argued that limiting corporate expenditures on campaigns violates First Amendment rights to free speech. The implication is that corporate free speech rights are sacred enough to offset the political corruption that will ensue now that top dollar can buy direct access to political power.

Judging by the amount of money that is already poured into Washington via lobbying -- which, according to Professor Mark J. Perry of the University of Michigan, hit a record of $3.2 billion in 2008 -- the industries that have the most to lose or gain from government action spend the most, namely health care, real estate, mortgage, auto makers and big oil.

Industries seeking to sway legislation -- health care comes to mind in light of the struggling Congressional reform effort -- can now invest even more money to threaten or sway candidates in their favor.There is also the danger of corporations that receive the majority of their revenue abroad, or domestic companies that are foreign-owned, exercising undue influence in the American political system.

Do we want these companies with foreign interest influencing our federal elections? What would an enterprise owned or influenced by the Russian or Chinese governments, some of our starkest competitors, do to a politician who campaigned hard for human rights or environmental activism?

But the ultimate danger here is the collective dismay of a disillusioned population that bailed out a financial system that ripped them off to begin with. How will Americans place their trust in a government that has now given bidding rights for elected positions to major corporations?

Free speech is more expensive than I thought.

Gary Iribarren is a senior English major.