| OCR Text |
Show 5 news as they see fit, potentially reducing speech to governmental interpretations of "True" reporting. John Samples (2010), director of The Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, (2010) said, "the speech, not the speaker, is important, and it cannot be denied that Congress prohibited speech prior to Citizens United" (para. 5). Others are concerned with the imperviousness of these financial networks. Although corporations are still not allowed to independently finance political candidates, they can nonetheless spend an unlimited amount of money on political endeavors that favor, or oppose, particular candidates if finances are channeled through other organizations that funnel money from lucrative donors. Unlike PACS, trade unions, and individuals, super PACs do not have to disclose where all the sources of money have come from, which has led some to call this "dark money" (New York Times, 2014; Vicens, 2014). Charles Lewis compares this political situation with the Watergate scandal, noting that the only difference is that today, secrecy and unlimited campaign donations are normal ways of doing politics. Consequently, many still believe that the Supreme Court has "legitimized systemic corruption" (Kritzler, 2015, para. 8) and "exacerbated our precarious, undemocratic condition" (Lewis, 2015, para. 35). Even Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men alive, has warned that Citizens United is a push "toward a plutocracy" (Harlow, 2015, [video file]). With so much passionate disagreement over the roles and functions of corporations in political affairs, how can rhetoricians make sense of this issue? What is it that is happening here and how does the emergence of the political corporate subject affect rhetoric, argumentation and social change? These questions are important because whether publics, academics, or legalists like it or not, corporate subjects are here to stay. |
