On Jan 21, a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) overturned centuries of corporate spending restrictions, institutionalized the return of judicial activism and set a precedent that will forever change the political landscape as we know it. Whatever vestiges of democracy Americans had prided themselves in have now been surrendered to the exigencies of corporatism.

The decision expanded to address an entire spectrum of questions — namely, that of corporate personhood. Their argument: if individuals are allowed to contribute money to political campaigns, why can’t an association of individuals pool their resources and do the same? The question, however, belies fallacious reasoning: when corporate money constitutes free speech, “who” exactly is doing the talking?

We can be certain it is not the lower-to-middle class workers who are “emancipated” by this new decision their opinions will be disregarded as CEOs, shareholders and other investors decide profit over welfare. Why is it a handful of people get to decide on behalf of the remaining 80 percent of the workforce which political campaigns are going to be subsidized with the fruits of collective labor? If money is free speech, and money is produced through joint activity, then allowing a cartel of economic elites to override the concerns of the majority constitutes nothing less than disenfranchisement and despotism.

The debate also addressed the distinction between broadcast media and print media: why was it that, according to McCain-Feingold, corporations could engage in electioneering via print media, but not in broadcast media? What was to stop the FEC from eventually banning books?

In response, a slippery-slope argument of my own: if we are to allow corporations to sponsor ads, what’s to stop them from donating directly to a political candidate? Or better yet, under the Supreme Court’s logic, which presupposes money is free speech and corporations are people, what is to stop companies from eventually claiming the legal right to vote in a general election?

Even if these hypotheticals never come to fruition, the Supreme Court’s decision permits direct corporate donations by proxy. Future presidential campaigns will now just redirect money from their media budget to other areas, while securing corporate sponsorships to cover advertisement costs.

It is the perfect synthesis of corporatism and politics, or what Benito Mussolini called “fascism.”

Most importantly, however, is there does exist a real, well-substantiated difference between textual and broadcast mediums. Whereas reading is an active process that is analytical and deliberate, with time for reflection and pause, broadcast media saturates a passive audience unwittingly with excess visual and auditory stimulation, which, unsurprisingly, has scientifically-confirmed ramifications for voting behavior.

The ramifications for democracy would be catastrophic. The conclusion is resounding: television is unique in its ability to shape the public agenda and directly influence voting behavior. The louder, prettier and more frequent the advertisements are, the greater the public will associate with its messages. Just as shouting fire in a crowded theater constitutes a “clear and present threat”, so too does any vehicle that can homogenize public opinion at the expense of democracy.

It is inconceivable to me that people are championing this decision as a win for democracy while failing to recognize corporations now have more rights than real citizens with none of the liability. A corporation doesn’t have to sign up for jury duty, it doesn’t have to enroll in the selective service, it never has to pay a “death” tax, it is functionally immune to criminal liability and despite all these glaring inadequacies, it is still treated as a human.

The “human-form” is now more disadvantageous than the “corporate-form;” it can only get worse from here.

And to think labor unions or munificent organizations will have the power to mitigate corporate influence is laughable. The recent health care debate is only a sample of what we can expect in the near future. In a country where corporations are so powerful they are able to mobilize a population against its own self-interest while controlling the political agenda, how can we claim to live in a democracy? Goldman Sachs spends more annually on paychecks to its top employees than the total net worth of all major national labor unions combined. You thought we had a chance?