In a ruling that can only be described as a direct assault on campaign finance reform, the Supreme Court majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission stated that banning corporate spending on political advertising during an election was unconstitutional. The decision is a threat to the very democratic system and First Amendment rights the Court claims to be protecting.
Flagrantly waving the flag of free speech, the Court based its ruling on the principle that, in politics, money equals speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy – who wrote for the majority – argued that “speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.” It is for this very reason that the Citizens United ruling is so dangerous to the American political process. If money is speech, then the voices of corporations – whose bank accounts dwarf those of individuals – will largely drown out the voices of private citizens.
Some argue that allowing corporations to engage in campaign advertising will not have major net effect on the balance of contributions to candidates of the major parties. Since the decision also opens the door for unions to contribute – and because there are corporations on both sides of the political aisle – they hold that neither major party will be disadvantaged. That is a difficult prediction to make, however, as the effects of the decision are not yet clear. Furthermore, the ruling is troublesome more for its effect on the role of the voter in elections than for worries over the partisan spending balance.
What, exactly, is the reason for concern? The idea that allowing corporations the freedom to unleash their war chests against candidates they wish to see defeated could make candidates more beholden to corporate agendas than constituent interests in building their platforms. In other words, the deep pockets of corporations could trump the ability of individual Americans to participate fully in political campaigns.
Those who agree with the Court might argue that, in effect, this was already true of American politics. Corporations could donate to political action committees that in turn, could spend on political campaigns. The difference, however, is that corporate money could only be used to cover administrative costs of PACs. The Citizens United ruling institutionalizes direct corporate spending on campaigns in a way that will certainly cause it to increase significantly and make constituent donations look like pennies in comparison.
It is also important to remember that Kennedy’s opinion assumes not only that money is speech but also that companies are due the same right to speech as citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution are corporations explicitly guaranteed any First Amendment liberties. Granted, corporations enjoy many protections under the law. But a corporation’s rights are not natural in the same way a person’s are. Chief Justice John Marshall said in the landmark case McCulloch v. Maryland that “Being the mere creature of law, [a corporation] possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.” In other words – while individuals are due certain rights that the Constitution distinguishes as inherent to citizenship – corporations do not have rights or privileges outside of those created for them under the law. Thus, a law restricting a corporation’s capacity to influence political campaigns would be entirely legitimate.
It would be easy to make the case that – although corporations are not citizens – they are made up of citizens whose economic interests are often tied up in the corporation. Elections can impact individuals by affecting the companies of which they are a part. While that may be true, limiting a corporation’s power to “speak” in an election does not hinder the ability of its employees to speak. Instead, granting speech to corporations on the whole would enable their leaders to speak twice – as individuals and again as shapers of their companies’ political interests.
Corporations cannot vote. They cannot be arrested, nor can they serve in times of war. Why should corporations enjoy the same political rights as Americans who bear the responsibilities of that citizenship? Government officials are elected to represent people, not corporations; people ought to be the focus – not an afterthought – during the campaign process.
*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinionthehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*”
