BILL MOYERS: Over the course of a long career in journalism, I've covered this story of money in politics more than any other. From time to time, I've been hopeful about a change for the better, but truth is, it just keeps getting uglier every year.

Those who write the checks keep buying the results they want at the expense of the public. As a reputedly self-governing democracy, we desperately need to address the problems that we've created for ourselves, but money makes impossible the reforms that might save us. Nothing in this country seems to be working to anyone's satisfaction except the wealth machine that rewards those who game the system. Unless we break their grip on our political institution, their power to buy the agenda they want no matter the cost to everyone else, we're finished as a functioning democracy.

In this I am sympathetic to the people who show up at tea party rallies asking what happened to their jobs, their pensions, their security — the America they believed in. What's happened, says the political scientist Sheldon Wolin, is the increasing cohabitation of state and corporate power.

This is why I find the Supreme Court ruling so preposterous and ominous. Five radical judges have taken a giant step toward legitimating the corporate takeover of democracy. "One person, one vote" — stop kidding yourself. As I once heard a very rich oilman tell congress after he paid $300,000 to the Democratic Party to get a moment of President Clinton's ear, "Money is a bit more than a vote." The huge sums of money that already flood our elections will now be multiplied many times over, most likely in secret.

Just this week, that indispensable journalistic website Talking Points Memo.com reported that an influential Washington lobbying firm is alerting corporate clients on how to use trade associations like the Chamber of Commerce as pass-throughs to dump unlimited amounts of cash directly into elections. They can specifically advocate or oppose a candidate — right up to Election Day — while keeping a low profile to prevent "public scrutiny" and negative press coverage. We'll never know what hit us, and like the titanic, we'll go down but with even fewer lifeboats.

That's it for the Journal.

Bill Moyers Essay: The Affront of Citizens United

February 19, 2010

Bill Moyers reflects on the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to feedback@billmoyers.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • Rob Duffy

    Ahem…”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “So, then – a decision overturning a law that allowed the federal government to selectively ban books and films, and fine and/or jail people for making political speech if done under a ‘corporate’ veil, and notwithstanding most newspapers and TV stations are corporations….How on earth do you think the First Amendment allowed for such a law?  Are you so obtuse that you think Supreme Court jurisprudence should merely be ‘politics by other means,’ notwithstanding the plain language of the Bill of Rights?You’re either for free speech or not.  You either believe the Bill of rights means what it says – or you’re a cryptofascist willing to ignore civil liberties you perceive as inconvenient.  In truth, your attitude is anti-democratic, myopic, anti-Constutional, and conveniently ignores the role that lobbyist $ plays on government decisions – a far more serious threat to democracy.

  • Private Private

    I understand your logic but I do not agree.

    The Constitution is a list of individual freedoms not freedoms of a collective or group.

    Additionally, the right to redress or petition is with the individual, again not a group or a collective. A group of individuals can come together for a common purpose, but once they venture to more commercalize endeavors then the Constitution empowers the state to have a say.

    Regardless of all this rhetoric and blurrying of truths that is going on, the end result, the reality is, big corporations are paying politicians large sums of money for favoritism. This is the essence of bribery. Somehow by creating doubt to whether  this is bribery by playing the “glass half empty, glass have full” rhetoric game, a distorted form of bribery has become legal.

    None of the the rights are absolute; for the individual, and especially for collectives and groups. The Constitution places commerce under the juridiction of the state. And thusly, the government has the right to place laws on it that restrict its ability to function in ways that might harm the rights of the individual, and in some cases, the rights of the collective.

    There are already numberous laws currently in place that, if corporations really had individual rights, would certainly be unconstitutional.

    Once you say commerce can only be regulated in light of a corporations individual rights and subject to the first amendment you start to unravel the entire intent of the Constitution and the intent of the power to regulate commerce being given to the state, federal and local.