Ever since Teddy Roosevelt coined the term, the bully pulpit has served for many presidents, regardless of partisan affiliation, as a means to express their views to the nation. Barack Obama is now at the helm of the bully pulpit, and his first State of the Union address has incited a controversy that pushes the boundaries of political precedent and decorum.
Obama openly criticized the recent Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission during his address, right in front of those who uphold the law of the land. Specifically, he said “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”
Samuel Alito didn’t take lightly to this, shaking his head and apparently mouthing the words “not true.”
Depending upon political persuasion, both Democrats and Republicans cried a breach of etiquette. Regardless, the sparring of a sitting president, especially during his State of the Union, and a sitting Supreme Court Justice, no matter how subtle, is an unprecedented occurrence. Those erring on a more conservative note felt that Obama had infringed upon the separation of powers; others felt Alito was out of his bounds for conveying his opinions.
Alito’s reaction appeared to have come from a particular point: foreign corporations being able to influence our elections. Obama was denigrated a liar.
Obama’s flaw was the specific mention of foreign corporations. However, corporations are now granted the same rights as the individual, so he has a point in fearing that foreign entities, which operate often under the same umbrella as U.S. corporations, can now exercise some sort of impact in our elections.
Globalization has cemented the interdependence of both domestic and foreign corporations. Even without explicit legalization, foreign corporations now have a loophole to influence our elections through the symbiotic relationship of domestic and international corporate cooperation.
So, what is the verdict? Did Barack Obama or Samuel Alito commit a serious breach of political etiquette?
The State of the Union address is the current president’s view of affairs, and while Obama’s at the bully pulpit, it is his right to mention issues that he feels are salient to the nation, which Supreme Court rulings are. It had nothing to do with Obama encroaching upon separation of powers; he should be able to state his concerns, regardless of whether the Supreme Court is present or not. He’s no Andrew Jackson.
Alito, on the other hand, is supposed to exercise impartiality and not let politics undermine his opinions. He should probably stick to being a stoic, stony-faced man in a robe.
Reach Alana at alana.arbuthnot@asu.edu
