Citizens United Case

The Undeserving Rights of American Corporations

Although corporations are comprised of individuals, it is highly debated if corporations deserve the same rights that the Constitution grants each American citizen. The First Amendment gives each citizen equal opportunity to pursue his or her own ambitions in coalition with their great nation. In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case No. 08-205, the Supreme Court validated the idea of political spending as free speech and abolished the ban on corporate political spending. Corporations are imperative to an industrialized society, but they should not have the right to control political decisions, especially when they are motivated by selfish and monetary reasons. Corporate speech involves individual speech, but it does not have the human voice. The Bill of Rights was drafted to protect the rational freedoms of an actual human voice. At the time of America’s establishment, the founding fathers drafted a Constitution without specified basic rights for American individuals. Therefore, the citizens demanded a Bill of Rights to guarantee their freedoms. James Madison scripted the First Amendment to protect the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition as evidenced by the direct quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Linder, 2012a)
The words, “the people,” as addressed in the First Amendment, do not include corporations and were designed to solely protect individuals. Corporations cannot vote nor can they run for office. Corporations, such as the East India Trading Company, were part of the reason the founding fathers desired a revolution against England. Madison thought of corporations as being corrupting influences on both the economy and the government (Fox, 2010). Thomas Jefferson, another powerful supporter of the First Amendment, stated, “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country” (Foster, 2011). The First Amendment is currently under more scrutiny than ever before. The proliferation of technology has drastically changed the average American’s way of life since such an abundance of information is now readily available and easily accessible. People also like being able to post anything, whether accurate or inaccurate, online and having the information generally accepted as fact by whoever is reading it (Yalof & Dautrich, 2002, p.79). First Amendment rights are now significant to citizens of all ages through self-expressive technologies. Because of the growth of technology, the role of the First Amendment is becoming more and more prevalent due to the rise of censorship. It is now possible for people to publicize ideas to millions of viewers via the Internet. However, corporations, such as Google, Facebook, and YouTube, are constantly pressured by the government and religious organizations to censor. Facebook and YouTube consistently decide what to censor and what to keep public on their sites (Wu, 2010). The First Amendment was developed to manage misuses of power and to keep the power balanced. Corporations will continue to disproportion America’s freedoms in more ways as technology advances; thus, citizens will come to greatly appreciate the rights specified to them in the First Amendment even more than they did before. However, the Supreme Court decided in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case that the freedom of corporate speech is also covered by the protections that promise freedom of individual speech. The Court overruled the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case, which held that prohibiting political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity does not violate the First Amendment, and it partially overruled the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission case, which upheld restrictions on electioneering communications by corporations or unions through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It all began when a feature film criticizing Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, Hillary: The Movie, was advertised. It was uncertain if the film was considered “electioneering communications” and thus subject to campaign finance laws. Companies were forbidden from spending money on advertising opposing or supporting a candidate thirty days before the primary election and sixty days before the general election. Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, created the film, and they argued they should not have to attach written disclosures on advertisements for the movie nor should they have to abide by the BCRA, who would prohibit them to use corporate funds for political speech. The Federal Election Committee disagreed, stating that the film was a clear attack on Hillary Clinton and was used intentionally to influence voters before the primaries (Linder, 2012b). The Court sided with Citizens United, thinking they were doing what was best for the country. Their verdict opened the doors for corporations and unions to spend freely on electioneering communications and to promote or discredit candidates. Political action groups, known as PACs, are able to contribute as much as they want to campaign for political candidates or legislation. They are not even required to reveal how they obtain the money. The unlimited amount of funds Super PACs spend is a threat to democracy and can lead to destruction (Nichols & McChestney, 2011). The five majority justices and the four dissenters disagreed over how far to carry the First Amendment. The majority sought out to remove the jurisdiction the government had regarding campaign contributions by corporations. The justices truly believed “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).” Justice Kennedy affirmed that by not lifting corporate speech regulations, the government was restraining individuals from conveying and hearing unfavorable ideas. Justice Scalia supported Kennedy; he knew the power of influence corporations would have over citizens after being granted unlimited spending, but he stated that it is the right of the American people to make decisions for themselves (Colucci, 2010). Justice Roberts and Justice Alito agreed that the government “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech,” and Justice Thomas believed corporate speech is imperative for an effective popular government. It is true that corporations represent a very significant element of the economy, and according to Justice Scalia, it is unjust for the government to mute their voices (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). Corporations are not equal to a people. They cannot eat or breathe, and they do not have a soul. However, the majority of the Supreme Court proved that in America, money is more important than a soul. A democracy is a government by the people, and it does not include imposing the prominent power of the select few upon the masses. The dissenters of the Court knew this. Justice Stevens, along with Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Breyer, was disappointed in the decision of the majority. Justice Stevens boldly stated in his dissent, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” He knows this decision will lead to corruption, as revealed in his statistic, “A large majority of Americans (80%) are of the view that corporations and other organizations that engage in electioneering communications…receive special consideration from those officials.” The majority is unable to say they were ruling in favor of the people since such a vast amount of citizens look at corporate expenditures as simply a scheme to gain inequitable authority. It was also affirmed in the dissent that the government should be able to regulate the involvement of corporations in the political process. Regulations will not keep anyone from expressing their opinions, but it will stabilize corporate spending and the strength of the corporation’s influence. If contributions by corporations were limited, the excess money could be funded towards a more substantial goal. The dissenters also argue for the rights of the shareholders. Shareholders, unlike corporations, are individual people, and their money invested in a corporation is not protected. Corporations may participate in a particular campaign with the shareholder’s money even if the shareholder is opposed. Justice Stevens, joined by the three other dissenting Justices, concluded by declaring the Court’s decision a rejection of American citizens, as well as those who have worked relentlessly to keep the nation free from corporate electioneering corruption since the days of America’s founding (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2011). Presenting corporations with freedom of speech undermines the functional practicability of promising rights of free speech to individuals. Corporations should not be given the same rights as individuals since their motivations differ immensely. Financial interests are what drive corporations, while people are more interested in specific things to improve their individual lifestyle. The outcome of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case No. 08-205 produces an interference with an individual’s support of a candidate, considering it is now essentially possible for an election to be bought. Corporations are able to pour all of their resources they have gathered in America and around the world into every election that pertains to them. Their contributions would undeniably go towards those in favor of American corporatism, and, therefore, the corporatist America trend continues. It is possible, at this rate, that corporations will be able to vote in elections one day, and maybe even run for President.

References

Colucci, F. (2010). Citizens United: the embodiment of Justice Kennedy’s role on court. Retrieved April 27, 2012 from http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives_books/citizens_united_the_embodiment_of_justice_kennedys_role_on_court/

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 558. U.S. (2010)

Foster, S. (2011). What the Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations. Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/13/what-the-founding-fathers-thought-about-corporations/

Fox, J. (2010). What the Founding Fathers Really Thought About Corporations. Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/04/what-the-founding-fathers-real.html

Linder, D. (2012a). The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance, Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html

Linder, D. (2012b). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Retrieved April 26, 2012 from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/citizensunited2010.html

Nichols, J., & McChestney, R.W. (2012). The Assault of the Super PACs. Nation, 294 (6), 11-17.

Wu, T. (2010). The Future of Free Speech. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57 (13), B4-B5.

Yalof, D.A., & Dautrich, K. (2002). The First Amendment and the Media

References: Colucci, F. (2010). Citizens United: the embodiment of Justice Kennedy’s role on court. Retrieved April 27, 2012 from http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives_books/citizens_united_the_embodiment_of_justice_kennedys_role_on_court/ Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 558. U.S. (2010) Foster, S. (2011). What the Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations. Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/13/what-the-founding-fathers-thought-about-corporations/ Fox, J. (2010). What the Founding Fathers Really Thought About Corporations. Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/04/what-the-founding-fathers-real.html Linder, D. (2012a). The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance, Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html Linder, D. (2012b). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Retrieved April 26, 2012 from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/citizensunited2010.html Nichols, J., & McChestney, R.W. (2012). The Assault of the Super PACs. Nation, 294 (6), 11-17. Wu, T. (2010). The Future of Free Speech. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57 (13), B4-B5. Yalof, D.A., & Dautrich, K. (2002). The First Amendment and the Media