The Space Merchants

That's the title of a classic science-fiction novel from the 1950s by Frederik Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth. The premise is that the U.S. is quite openly run by corporations -- senators represent AT&T, General Motors, BBD&O and the like. The individual is nothing more than a consumer who makes just enough to spend it all on whatever marketing organizations decide he or she "needs" most. (Need I add that Pohl and Kornbluth were recognized as gifted satirists in the tradition of Jonathan Swift and Nikolai Gogol?)

It's about to come true:

One major provision of the McCain-Feingold law banned the broadcast of independent political advertisements about candidates within 30 days of an election if the ads were financed by corporate or union funds. The Supreme Court upheld this provision six years ago, but since then, conservative groups have repeatedly brought new challenges, including a relatively minor challenge that was heard by the court in March.

The argument went badly for campaign finance reform advocates when a government lawyer was asked whether Congress could also pass a law banning the publication of a corporate-funded campaign book just before an election. Yes, said the lawyer, adding that no such law exists. At the prospect of book-banning, Justice Samuel Alito blurted "that's pretty incredible," and other justices openly gaped.

In June, the justices ordered the case re-argued, only this time, they said they wanted the lawyers to focus on whether the Constitution permits any ban on corporate spending in candidate elections. In short, the court said it is considering whether to reverse decades of its own decisions.

Ted Olson is arguing the case for the corporations six years after he defended the law before the Court:

"The most important right we have in a democracy is the right to participate in the electoral process. We've smothered that right with the most incomprehensible, burdensome, unintelligible set of regulations and laws, some of which are criminal laws, surrounding that freedom. That's intolerable," says Ted Olson, who argued in support of the McCain-Feingold law as solicitor general for the Bush administration. On Wednesday, he will be arguing against it.

Olson maintains that corporations are individuals, in a constitutional sense, and should be able to express their views. Money, he says, is speech.

"You can't speak without money," Olson says. "In this day and age, you need resources to reach people. And that's part of the right to speak." He adds: "There's nothing more important under the First Amendment than to talk about elections."

The big question, of course, is whether the First Amendment applies to corporations, which, while legally "persons," are not, in fact, "individuals."

At any rate, given the current composition of the Court, I'm betting on the corporate interests. They already own Congress -- might as well make it official.