“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”

The United States Supreme Court took another giant step towards its goal of building a permanent Republican majority in both houses of Congress. It started with the Bush v. Gore decision that took the 2000 Presidential election out of the hands of the voters and installed George W. Bush in the White House.

But (to the apparent chagrin of the five conservative Justices) the Democrats rebounded over the ensuing eight years, took both houses of Congress and Barack Obama was elected President.

In response, by two 5-4 decisions, the Court tilted the scale of justice away from the people and toward corporations and the ultra-wealthy. Both cases centered on the words above in which the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that free speech cannot be abridged by an act of Congress.

In each of the rulings the five justices agreed that by “free” the drafters really meant that those with the most money have a right to dominate public discourse.

The first decision came in the Citizens United case (January 2010), when the court ruled 5-4 that corporations and other moneyed institutions are understood to be people under the First Amendment and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

The second decision came on July 27 when the court (by the same 5-4 majority) overturned an Arizona law that made it possible for candidates who opted for the state’s public financing program to run on a level playing field when faced with a mega-wealthy opponent.

The Arizona law was both reasonable and creative. It stipulated that a candidate who ran under public financing provisions would receive a set amount of campaign funds, and that those funds would be increased by matching the spending of a wealthy opponent who opted out of the public program.

In other words, corporations and wealthy individuals can now drown out any objective discussion about candidates and issues by purchasing “free” speech in great quantity.  And the United States Chamber of Commerce is crowing: Robin Conrad, their executive vice president, put the Arizona decision alongside the Court’s two 5-4 business-friendly rulings that make it difficult for workers to file class action suits (see the Walmart and AT&T cases), and she declared that business “won the triple crown!”

It is no coincidence that Republican presidents appointed all of the big-five Justices: two by Ronald Reagan, one by George H.W. Bush and two by George W. Bush. Together they make up a court that is ideologically far to the right, and rigidly partisan.

Progressives who say that they are going to sit out the 2012 election because they are disillusioned with the Obama administration — and claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats — need to beware.  Imagine a Republican President giving Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas two additional like-minded colleagues. If that were to happen the progressive cause would be set back for at least one political generation.

By my analysis, the electoral system would be tilted even further in favor of wealth and corporate power, universal access to health care would be scuttled, civil rights and worker’s rights would be curtailed, and corporate rights enhanced. The direction we are headed as a nation is away from democracy and toward oligarchy.