To: Chief Justice Roberts, U.S Supreme Court

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

I am writing to applaud your decision on the corporate funding of elections in the case involving Citizens United.

This decision is a breath of fresh air in the debate about election funding and is forward-looking. It is forward-looking because it has become clear that in this modern complex society democracy, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is simply not working. Congress is wholly disfunctional. There is no point in having national elections where a single party seizes control of the levers of power if it cannot work the will of the people.

I draw your attention to the parallel between the current American experience and the demise of the Roman Republic. In the latter case it became clear that the Roman Senate was an inappropriate vehicle to run a huge and expanding empire. It was riven by personal and party disagreements and could get nothing done.

In our era our elected representatives have neither the expertise nor the education to manage the greatest country in the history of the world. The Roman answer was military dictatorship, headed by an emperor. In our case we need to shed the fiction that the ordinary man in the street has any influence on affairs and embrace openly and honestly the fact that we live in an oligarchy composed of an alliance of very rich men and corporate CEOs, answerable, thank heaven, to nobody. They understand better than the average Joe what the country needs and can organize the range of oligopolies necessary to entrench the power of the great and good. It is a truism that God arranged to make this small band of successful men and women our leaders, and we should honor them. What is good for business is good for America.

The next move, whenever you are able, is logical. If corporations are individuals then they should get the vote. This would restore the desirable situation where people of wealth and high standing had 2 overt votes. In any case, I look forward to an increasing number of corporations standing for election to Congress in the event that they want to do more for the country.

Some people have accused you and your colleagues of being activist judges. This is grossly unfair. Activism is only activism if it is assisting the undeserving poor, the lazy and unemployed, illegal minorities and so on. It cannot be activism if it is lending stability to the political system, helping to stamp out progressivism and returning to good old feudal values.

Your next project has to be overturning attempts to improve the American education system. Free education at taxpayer expense was never envisaged when the Constitution was written and the tax that goes with it is a gross infringement on the rights of those who have no children or whose children have grown up and left home. The whole idea of contributing to the overall welfare of the community is a liberal concept. Only half the population could read and write in 1789 and everyone, black and white, got along just fine. Surely both Federal and State involvement in education has to be unconstitutional.


Robert Hanrott

April 1st, 2010