Master Plan Podcast Episode Summary: "Corporations Are People, My Friend"

Release Date: September 17, 2024
Host: David Sirota
Podcast: Master Plan by The Lever
www.masterplanpodcast.com

Introduction: The Ripple Effects of RFK's Assassination

The episode begins by delving into the assassination of Senator Robert Francis Kennedy on June 6, 1968, and its unforeseen impact on American democracy. Host David Sirota draws a parallel to chaos theory, illustrating how RFK's death acted as the initial "flap of a butterfly's wings," leading to significant political shifts over the ensuing decades.

David Sirota [01:07]: "Kennedy's assassination left a vacancy in the US Senate, which New York's Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller filled with a relatively obscure member of his own party rather than with another Democrat."

Charles Goodell and the Birth of a Conservative Strategy

Governor Nelson Rockefeller appointed Charles Goodell, a Republican Congressman, to fill RFK's Senate seat. Goodell emerged as a vocal critic of the Nixon administration and the Vietnam War, placing him on President Nixon's "enemies list."

Vice President Agnew [03:07]: "...Goodell stimulates the type of leadership which encourages the dissident element in our society."

Faced with the potential loss of the seat to a liberal Republican, Nixon's team devised a long-shot strategy to install James Buckley, a conservative outsider, thereby strengthening the conservative movement's foothold in American politics.

David Sirota [04:01]: "Eastern liberal establishment, James Buckley became the nominee of the Conservative Party of New York. He was a long shot third party candidate with a populist message."

The Emergence of the Master Plan and Lewis Powell's Influence

James Buckley's election as the first third-party Senator in decades became a pivotal moment for the "Master Plan." Buckley, perceived as an earnest outsider, later collaborated with Washington insiders to challenge campaign finance laws, aligning with the broader strategy outlined in Lewis Powell's memo—a blueprint for corporate influence in politics.

David Sirota [05:30]: "James Buckley worked with DC insiders to engineer a lawsuit that would strike the first and perhaps most important blow against America's new campaign finance laws."

Buckley v. Vallejo: Challenging Campaign Finance Reform

In 1975, Buckley initiated a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), arguing that the recently amended Federal Election Campaign Act (FICA) violated the First Amendment by restricting political spending. The case, Buckley v. Vallejo, served as a foundational challenge to campaign finance regulations.

David Sirota [10:55]: "The defendant in this case was Francis Vallejo of the brand new Federal Election Commission created by FICA."

Legal scholar Rick Hasen explains the central issue of the case:

Rick Hasen [09:14]: "One is imposing contribution and spending limits, one is imposing disclosure requirements, one is creating the Federal Election Commission, and one is setting up a system for public financing of presidential, but not congressional campaigns."

Supreme Court Proceedings and Strategic Maneuvering

The case escalated to the Supreme Court, where Buckley and his diverse group of plaintiffs—including Senator Eugene McCarthy, various political parties, and even the New York Civil Liberties Union—challenged FICA's contribution and expenditure limits as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.

David Sirota [11:50]: "Man, I wish we could Vote for Jimmy Carter again. Is that an option?"

The government's defense, led by Archibald Cox and Solicitor General Robert Bork, argued that money in politics equates to corruption and vote-buying, justifying the need for regulation.

Archibald Cox [18:35]: "contributing money to campaigns wasn't protected speech, and neither was campaign spending. They argued that money doesn't buy speech, it buys votes, which is illegal."

Despite Cox's arguments, internal conflicts within the Ford administration revealed a lack of genuine support for FICA's enforcement, hinting at the underlying Master Plan's objectives.

Buckley v. Vallejo Ruling: A Landmark Decision

On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court delivered a split ruling. While it upheld contribution limits, it struck down expenditure restrictions, asserting that such limits directly infringed upon First Amendment rights.

David Sirota [21:01]: "...the Supreme Court upheld the contribution limits, saying they only imposed a minor restriction on free speech. But the Court also said that if the government limited how much money a candidate or a special interest group could spend on something like a billboard or a TV commercial, that was a direct infringement on their ability to communicate."

This decision established a precedent that equated political spending with protected speech, laying the groundwork for future corporate influence in politics.

Adjacent Supreme Court Cases: Expanding the Influence of Corporate Speech

Concurrently, the Supreme Court reviewed cases related to abortion advertising and prescription drug price disclosures. Legal strategist Alan Morrison's "listener theory" fortified the argument that all forms of speech, including commercial speech, should be protected under the First Amendment.

Jane Sirota [24:36]: "...speech that he argued, should be protected under the First Amendment because it allowed the public to be more important informed."

These cases further blurred the lines between personal and corporate speech, reinforcing the notion that corporations possess similar First Amendment rights as individuals.

First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti: Corporate Speech Solidified

In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti, which challenged Massachusetts' restrictive campaign finance law. Richard Hill of the First National Bank argued that such restrictions were unconstitutional.

Adam Winkler [30:02]: "Representing Hill and the other rich guys was Francis Fox..."

Lewis Powell, a Supreme Court Justice influenced by the Powell memo, spearheaded the argument that corporations should have the same free speech rights as individuals. Despite initial resistance from other justices, Powell successfully secured a 5-4 majority to strike down Massachusetts' law.

David Sirota [41:38]: "Lewis Powell had successfully blown open the floodgates for the kind of corporate spending that his memo said was necessary for a big business takeover of the country."

This ruling was a direct manifestation of the Master Plan, ensuring that corporations could exert unlimited financial influence on political campaigns and policymaking.

The Aftermath: Explosion of Corporate Influence in Politics

Following the Buckley and Bellotti decisions, Political Action Committees (PACs) proliferated, serving as conduits for corporate money in politics. The number of PACs surged from approximately 600 in 1974 to 2,300 by 1980, with nearly half having corporate affiliations.

David Sirota [45:36]: "...the tide of corporate spending on political activities rose exponentially in that six year period and no one with any power seemed to be interested in doing anything to stop it."

These developments marked the culmination of the Master Plan, embedding corporate financial power deeply into the fabric of American democracy.

Conclusion: The Master Plan Realized

David Sirota concludes the episode by highlighting how strategic legal battles, influenced by the Powell memo and orchestrated by corporate interests, systematically dismantled campaign finance reforms. This allowed for unprecedented corporate influence in politics, transforming the United States into what the podcast describes as a "kleptocracy."

David Sirota [43:59]: "Boom shakalaka. You wanted me to show you the money? Well, there it is. There's your payoff."

The episode sets the stage for subsequent discussions on how this foundational shift has continued to shape American politics, leading into the next installment of the Master Plan series.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• David Sirota [04:23]: "James Buckley, man of the people. And by the people, I mean all us descendants of rich oil families."

• Rick Hasen [09:14]: "One is imposing contribution and spending limits, one is imposing disclosure requirements, one is creating the Federal Election Commission, and one is setting up a system for public financing of presidential, but not congressional campaigns."

• David Sirota [11:50]: "Man, I wish we could Vote for Jimmy Carter again. Is that an option?"

• Archibald Cox [18:35]: "They argued that money doesn't buy speech, it buys votes, which is illegal."

• Rick Hasen [19:56]: "People who are working for the federal government, some of them side with Buckley and the plaintiffs."

• Adam Winkler [30:02]: "Representing Hill and the other rich guys was Francis Fox..."

• David Sirota [43:59]: "Boom shakalaka. You wanted me to show you the money? Well, there it is. There's your payoff."

Key Takeaways

1. RFK's Assassination: Initiated a series of political maneuvers that ultimately facilitated the rise of conservative influence in the U.S. Senate.
2. James Buckley's Election: Served as a strategic foothold for the conservative movement to challenge and reshape campaign finance laws.
3. Buckley v. Vallejo: Established a Supreme Court precedent equating political spending with protected speech, undermining campaign finance reforms.
4. Lewis Powell's Role: Instrumental in expanding corporate First Amendment rights, ensuring sustained corporate influence in politics.
5. Proliferation of PACs: The legal victories paved the way for an explosion of corporate-backed political action committees, cementing the Master Plan's objectives.

This episode of Master Plan meticulously traces the legal and political strategies that transformed American democracy, highlighting the calculated efforts to entrench corporate power through judicial means. It underscores the enduring legacy of pivotal Supreme Court decisions that continue to influence the landscape of U.S. politics today.