In arguing that "governance by corporations has become the norm in America" ("Power to the people, not the cruise industry," Compass, March 28), Gershon Cohen displayed the following words of alongside those of Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt: "Our founding fathers never wanted them, these behemoth organizations that never die, so they can collect an insurmountable amount of profit. It puts the people at a tremendous disadvantage." The words are attributed to "Dale Robertson, founder of TeaParty.org."
Unfortunately, Mr. Cohen chose to identify with the organizers of a disreputable group whose planning efforts and rally signs across the nation often incite extremely uncivil behavior. On several recent occasions, when violence has occurred at a rally or gathering, tea party supporters piously deny the facts, despite documentary evidence and eye-witness accounts to the contrary. If that tactic won't work, they piously deny their involvement or intent.
There is grim irony in the fact that the Ultimate Civics project, of which Mr. Cohen is assistant director, prominently features the same Robertson quote on its Web site. After a picture of Robertson, carrying a sign that prominently displayed the N-word (misspelled) at a Houston rally early in 2009, Tea Party Society founders in Houston declared that Robertson "is NOT a member of our Leadership team. ... has never been a part of organizing any of the Tea Party rallies" and "[w]e do not choose to associate with people that use his type of disgusting language."
The Ultimate Civics group's misguided flirtation with mongers of hate and violence raises this troubling question: If this organization cannot get its facts straight, can we trust its teaching and preaching? I agree that legislative action is necessary to mitigate the damage to the electoral process caused by the U.S. Supreme Court's January decision freeing corporations from campaign spending limits. Somewhat illogically, however, Mr. Cohen urges people to contact their legislators and support a bill that would "abolish 'corporate personhood' for purposes of elections in Alaska."
More practical persons are supporting a different approach to this problem. Other legislative proposals, unmentioned by Mr. Cohen, would strengthen regulatory controls, insofar as possible, to make sure people know who is paying for campaign advertising. This approach recognizes the U.S. Supreme Court's January decision as a horrible aberration of free speech and an abridgement of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Ultimate Civics, on the other hand, views this problem as one deriving from the extension of the Fourteenth Amendment, following the Civil War, to enhance corporate rights.
Although I join Mr. Cohen in lamenting the extension of corporate power, I believe the anti-corporate personhood activists may be tilting at the wrong windmill. In my view, corporate personhood might not be a root cause of problems; moreover, the Ultimate Civics broad-brush approach, if it were ever implemented, is liable to freeze the economy, with no guaranteed outcome except that corporate attorneys will get rich for decades wrangling over details.
I discussed these concerns with Ultimate Civics advocates late last year. At that time, the group's leaders, gleefully waiting for the Supreme Court's expected decision so that they could launch a national campaign, were not interested in discussing root causes or practical alternative solutions to address corporate power. After extended dialogue, I concluded that this group was more interested in rhetoric than reason, and most interested in whipping up public frenzy.
Some may view the name "Ultimate Civics" as a pompous brag. But I wonder sadly: Does the name correctly indicate that we are approaching the end of civil discourse? I submit that the best way out of the rancorous morass in which public debate now flounders is to pay close attention to facts and employ that information carefully in reasoned discourse. We would be well served if groups such as tea party and Ultimate Civics stood for this proposition. But they don't.
Richard A. Fineberg of Ester is a veteran oil and gas observer who taught political science at the University of Alaska from 1969 to 1971.
By RICHARD FINEBERG