If political ads annoyed you in 2008, just wait until later this year.
In a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of corporations and unions to purchase political advertising is protected as free speech by the first amendment. Corporations, according to the majority opinion, are collections of individuals that contribute to political culture as much as politically minded individuals do. Effectively, they’re “persons” before this section of the constitution. The ruling would allow companies to spend as much as they want on political advertising, even during campaigns and special elections. This should disturb most of us.
It isn’t a bad thing for citizens to organize together to share their political opinions. The ruling struck down restrictions on an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary that a conservative group wanted shown in theaters. In the majority’s mind, these kinds of civic non-profit groups will blossom in the post-decision political climate. Things get more frightening when those groups of citizens are General Motors or Exxon Mobil.
Profit-seeking firms organize themselves to make money. Despite what legal tradition seems to hold, it’s odd to treat these groups like people. When companies “speak” with their money, flooding the airwaves with commercials, it’s a calculated decision to participate in politics so that favorable laws are passed and pro-business politicians are elected.
But instead of that decision being made based on a person or group’s policy convictions, it’s made to maximize profits by affecting democracy. That seems very different to me than citizens coming together and raising funds and awareness because they are concerned with the way the country is being run. These types of speech don’t affect political discourse in the same way, and shouldn’t be treated the same before the law.
To be fair, the decision is more realistic than anything else. The now-defunct restrictions lawmakers put on corporate money in politics just led to an increase in the dollars going to lobbyists and questionable fundraising groups. Money and politics have always gone together, and the Supreme Court’s decision will at least make things more transparent.
In order to be protected by the Constitution, corporations must disclose where their money is going. The ruling would allow a company to support a candidate or policy through advertising, but they might think twice before doing so. In today’s world, what candidate would want to be saddled with a brand name while he’s on the campaign trail? Money can hurt as much as it helps.
The decision has solidified something bad about America, but it also has made the process simpler and clearer. Hopefully the president, Congress and the public can create a response that will tell companies what they will and will not tolerate from them in politics. Money can only get you so far. Until corporations are allowed to vote, power will continue to belong to the people.
