Dominic Baez, Editor-in-chief. Every American citizen is entitled to free speech. That’s a given. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, corporations are considered American citizens, even when it comes to free speech rights.
Confusing? Look at this way: Corporations are simply entities comprising many citizens, so it’s not a far stretch to see how this could be determined. Whether that decision was well-thought out is a question for another day. However, for the last half-century, the Supreme Court has barred corporations (and unions) from spending money to support or oppose candidates for federal office. The main reason for this position was to prevent corporations (and their vast treasuries) from influencing federal elections in undemocratic ways.
Well, that has changed. The Supreme Court, in the bitterly divided 5-4 decision of United Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, decided that corporations and unions are free to spend as much as they please promoting or attacking candidates for federal office. The majority cited free speech as its reasoning, and noted that the previous law did nothing to stymie election corruption.
This again makes sense if you look at it through the same lens as before: If corporations are citizens, and citizens have the right to support or oppose federal candidates, then it only makes sense that corporations would be able to, as well.
Yes, it makes sense, and that’s all fine and dandy, but it doesn’t make it right. If you’ll recall, segregation was legal at one point. (And no, this isn’t comparing campaign finance to segregation; it’s just an example.)
Regarding this farce of a decision, two main concerns spring up: whether the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries by answering questions that were not asked, and whether you can consider corporations to be citizens to begin with.
While nearly half the court disagreed with the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens vehemently opposed the decision. (He authored the 89-page, scathingly dissenting opinion.)
“The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation,” he said in his opinion. “The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”
Answering the first question, Justice Stevens said, “The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its ‘identity’ as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC.”
It’s obvious that the court’s decision was overreaching. What’s even more obvious, however, is the damage that can (and will) ensue. As a general rule, corporations tend to favor Republicans and any legislation that aids them. (Democrats, as of late, have been helped by health care industries and unions, so there’s enough blame for everyone.)
A natural correlation would be that corporations would heavily advertise for those who would enact legislation that would benefit them, not necessarily the nation as a whole, and oppose those who would impose anti-corporation-friendly legislation. Those saying this won’t happen are deluding themselves. To emphasize that point, Congressmen are already drafting legislation that will curb this decision’s antidemocratic effects.
As for corporations being considered legal citizens, Justice Stevens said, “The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.”
This is where ideologies run opposite of legality, at least in the strictest of senses. While it adds up that corporations can be viewed as citizens, it doesn’t make sense that they, composed of individuals who already have the right to free speech, should get more opportunities than non-corporate citizens to speak out. Think of it as a double-count (or a negative count) for those participating. An obvious solution would be reversing the decision to treat corporations as such.
Regardless of your perception of corporations, a universal truth remains: American citizens (natural persons) should not be considered second-best in a competition for free speech. In that contest, no one wins.