The chair recognizes the Senator from Exxon

I wrote before how the reasoning behind the big decision on corporate spending for elections didn't pass the smell test. The only way out of it is a constitutional amendment. We may be to the point where impeachment won't help. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (transcript found in the comments here) lays out the consequences. Is his warning too dire? Or on target? Some of his points:

* Legislators at all levels can and will be bought. It may take a while but not all of them need to be bought. When bought, they will erase any remaining checks and balances that currently prevent corporations from writing the laws. I heard one report that said compared to the profits of Big Oil in the last year, buying every single TV ad timeslot during a campaign season in a market such as Louisville, KY would be a pittance. The buyer wouldn't need to use them all for campaign ads. But the competitor would have no way to run any ads.

* No need for citizens in campaign fundraising, or involvement other than to vote.

* The law said unions can also spend freely. However, their bank accounts are no match for corporations. No matter because unions will be neutered through new laws.

* Reduction in taxes for at least corporations and the wealthy. This comes with elimination of social safety nets. I've written before how the destruction of such safety leads to the uprising of the working class (the start of fascism).

* Wars will be sold as products or reality shows because military industrial corporations need a reason to exist.

* Bans on gay marriage (and gays in general), abortion, evolution, separation of church and state. This will happen because the most rabid voters are against these things and throw them these bones and they won't care what else corporations want to do.

* Racial and religious tensions will be inflamed because somebody needs to be the scapegoat for the loss of the safety net and civil liberties and deflect the agitators away from corporations. But once the work of the agitators is done and they realize they've betrayed American freedom, they will be banned.

* The loss of independent news because once the need to inflame people to vote a particular way has passed the news will need to be "everything's great!" All rabble-rousers (like Limbaugh) will be silenced.

* The internet you say? Ask the Chinese how well that's working for them.

* Change the Supremes! Alas, by the time enough appointments could make a difference, the people who make and approve the appointment will have been bought off.

* There's still free speech! Um, no. See the point above. The irony is that this issue was decided on free speech grounds, that corporations have as much right to free speech as the rest of us.

On target? Overblown? When have the largest corporations shown anything like conscience or compassion? And who now has the ability to stop them?

Here's one reason (of probably many) why a corporation is not equivalent to a person (the basis for the Supremes' decision). They may be managed and controlled by non-residents, whose interests do not coincide with eligible voters.

Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has proposed a few bills to perhaps lessen the damage of the ruling. One requires immediate public disclosure. Seeing the way the anti-gay forces are dragging their feet on disclosure, good luck with that. Another bill requires that corporations get prior approval from shareholders. Even with these bills it only slows down the time when corporations are the only ones with constitutional rights.

Members of Congress spend a lot of time raising money. A good deal of that time is calling corporate executives. Some of them, who don’t quite lead the giant corporations, are complaining, saying, "Stop hitting us up for cash!" Since that complaint came so closely after the Supremes' ruling it has left some government watchers wondering if this was a ruse to say, "See, we aren't really out to take over the world."

If corporations get First Amendment rights, will they get Second Amendment rights too? Will they have the right to arm themselves?