AMY GOODMAN: And you are listening to Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!, as we move on to another national story. It was a victory for multinational corporations, in particular Unocal, the Los Angeles-based oil giant, as well as other forces for economic globalization. The Supreme Court yesterday struck down a Massachusetts law that penalized companies doing business with the military dictatorship of Burma. The court’s vote was unanimous. The Massachusetts law was modeled after the boycotts of South Africa under apartheid. Yesterday’s ruling could affect some 22 cities or counties or states which have similar laws. They include Berkeley; New Mexico; Boulder, Colorado; Los Angeles; New York; Takoma Park, Maryland; Madison, Wisconsin; Ann Arbor; and Vermont. Activist groups responded to the ruling by announcing a new legislative campaign.

We’re joined on the telephone now by Massachusetts legislator Byron Rushing, who authored the law in Massachusetts that was struck down yesterday by the Supreme Court. Can you start by just giving us your reaction to the ruling?

REP. BYRON RUSHING: Well, I was certainly disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling, though I was not surprised. The only thing that surprised me was that there was no minority opinion. From the oral arguments that we heard a few months ago, I thought there was going to be some division on the Supreme Court. But this was a disappointment.

But we are hopeful that we will be able to maintain the pressure on the military government in Burma, because the Supreme Court did in their ruling rule in a very narrow fashion. Essentially, they said that the Burma law in Massachusetts, which prevented Massachusetts from purchasing goods and services from companies that do business in or with Burma, the Supreme Court said that that law was unconstitutional because it had been superseded by congressional and presidential action around Burma, and that it was not consistent with that action. Now, we disagree with that, but we do appreciate the fact that the court was not saying that we could not do this kind of activity, that local governments and state governments could not do this kind of activity ever. But they said, in this particular case, we could not do this kind of activity.

So I would say that we can say to activists, and especially to the forces for the restoration of democracy in Burma, and the Burmese who are in exile because of that, that we have a strategy that has been declared unconstitutional, but the goal of taking into consideration human rights abuses and the goal of local and state governments supporting democracy around the world is still valid.

AMY GOODMAN: Isn’t this a time when the Supreme Court is moving more towards states’ rights?

REP. BYRON RUSHING: I think that’s why — and I would say that because the Supreme Court is moving more towards states’ rights, if — that that is one of the reasons why this decision was so narrowly crafted by the Supreme Court. So, the Supreme Court did not respond to many of the arguments that were made by the people who were — the corporate American corporations who were suing the state of Massachusetts. In a funny way, this was a backhanded compliment to Massachusetts. I mean, they essentially said that when the law was originally passed, and there was no congressional action concerning Burma, then the law was probably constitutional. I mean, they say that — they imply that. But once Congress passed a law, though it was different from what Massachusetts was suggesting, once Congress passed a law that gave the president authority to place sanctions on Burma, then the Massachusetts law was not only moot, but it was unconstitutional.

AMY GOODMAN: Yet, didn’t David Souter, the justice who wrote the majority opinion, or the unanimous opinion, say that if the sanctions that had been passed in cities and states around this country had gone to the Supreme Court, they, too, might not have met the scrutiny of the court?

REP. BYRON RUSHING: Well, that’s right. But, of course, that’s a very strange argument. Of course, it was a very different Supreme Court then. And I suspect that we probably — that we might have won in the Supreme Court then. But, of course, this is a different Supreme Court. But he was saying that since this tactic had not come before the Supreme Court, we could not argue that the — that what happened around apartheid can inform what is happening now around the junta in Burma.

AMY GOODMAN: How powerful are the corporations in their battle against the Massachusetts law?

REP. BYRON RUSHING: I think this is the — I think this is what is the most significant difference between the policies around human rights now than 10 and 15 years ago, and that is that American corporations have really withdrawn from the idea of socially responsible investment in the world, that they are moving further and further away from any interest in human rights and really socially responsible values in making money. And I think that they took this as an opportunity to try to handicap local activists throughout the United States. I think they see a growing concern among Americans, especially young Americans, for democracy and human rights around the world, and they do not want these strategies to be used. I think that we have been able in — although we had a loss in this case, I think at the same time that we have been able to raise up for Americans the threat of our own corporations taking these kinds of positions, that we should be able — that they should be able to raise their profits, satisfy their stockholders, with no regard for how those profits are made and in how that profit making is related to the suppression of rights of other peoples in the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Unocal. The New York Times has a sidebar on how this ruling by the Supreme Court is a victory for the oil giant Unocal. Can you talk about the entity that brought suit against the Massachusetts law, that challenged it to the Supreme Court?

REP. BYRON RUSHING: Well, this group of corporations that brought the — we have always thought that Unocal was sort of — was the bankroller of this suit. But I think that the group of corporations, the National Council for Foreign Trade, that brought this suit, of course, are representing those corporations that want to have a free hand in their investment around the world. I disagree that this is going to have any major effect on the Unocal case. I think that because the Unocal case is challenging Unocal on very specific human rights violations by that company doing business with, in conjunction — this is not simply that Unocal was doing business in Burma. They are doing business in partnership with the military junta there. And I think that that case will be played out apart from this decision, and is one of the advantages for having this decision be a ruling that is done so narrowly.

AMY GOODMAN: Representative Byron Rushing, will you be introducing a new bill?

REP. BYRON RUSHING: Well, we’re encouraging everyone who’s participated in this around the country to analyze the Supreme Court decision and shift to other strategies. As I said, this is really a defeat for one strategy; this is not a defeat for the goal. In Massachusetts, we’re going to introduce legislation around divestment, so to urge our public pension funds not to invest in companies that do business in Burma.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us.

REP. BYRON RUSHING: I’m glad I had the opportunity to talk to you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: State Representative Byron Rushing from Massachusetts. He is the author of the Massachusetts law that was struck down yesterday by the Supreme Court.