The corporate takeover of America by means of free speech?

The United States Supreme Court’s decision last week to overturn laws that limited the corporate financing of independent political broadcasts was a triumph for free speech.  The First Amendment does not only apply to individuals but to groups and organizations as well. All organizations, whether nonprofit or for-profit, have the right to have their opinions heard.

Opponents of the landmark Supreme Court decision seem to think that it signals the end of democracy. In his weekly radio address, President Barack Obama himself emotionally stated that “this ruling strikes at the heart of democracy itself.” However, such claims predicting the end of democracy and the subsequent corporate takeover of America are completely unfounded. Once we look past all the fear mongering and actually read the Supreme Court’s opinion, it is clear that the Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, not changed that much. Corporations, labor unions, and other special interest groups still cannot give unlimited funding to political campaigns nor can they coordinate efforts with any politician up for reelection. They even still have to report their spending to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of spending any money. The only change in the law is that now corporations and special interest groups can spend unlimited amounts of money to independently endorse a particular candidate over another.

Even with the changes in the law, it is still difficult to say whether corporations and special interest groups will actually exercise their constitutional rights. After all, it is risky to endorse a particular candidate over another, especially if said candidate loses. Organizations can spend billions endorsing a candidate, but that does not always mean that he will win. More money does not always equal victory. Corporations will most likely rarely actively endorse a particular candidate, especially when profits and stock value are on the line. Nonprofit organizations that don’t have to worry about profit may on occasion spend more money on campaign broadcasts, but then again there may be political retribution for endorsing a losing candidate.

Furthermore, even if corporations and special interest groups were to spend more, how exactly would the public be hurt? There would simply be more available for voters. It is still the voter’s responsibility to choose what information to believe. After all, voters, not political spending and advertisements, have the power to decide elections. Since the law doesn’t change the fact that the producers of political broadcasts must reveal themselves, voters will know who is producing an ad. They will be able to know that a special interest group is producing a particular ad and will be able make an intelligent decision with that in mind.

Additionally, there are thousands of special interest groups representing thousands of different issues, and they all have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money. It is highly doubtful that any one group would be able to dominate the others with the amount of broadcasts that they can produce. If lobbyists and other special interest groups were to threaten politicians with negative campaign ads, other special interest groups and corporations could spend money to combat those ads.

Once we realize that special interest groups will not take control of the United States and that democracy will not end because of this Supreme Court ruling, we can see that the ruling actually makes sense. If someone believes that candidate X is better than candidate Y, then doesn’t he have the right to say so? Doesn’t he also have the right to buy advertisements so that others can know his opinion? Why should groups or individuals be prevented from spending money to have their opinion heard? The beauty of the First Amendment is that Americans are allowed to say that candidate X is better than candidate Y without any restrictions or retribution. The decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission simply recognizes and upholds this right. The government has no right to limit people’s speech regardless of its content. Therefore, I, on behalf of the Columbia University College Republicans, applaud the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. It was about time the courts spoke out for free speech.

The author is a Columbia College first-year. He is the director of finance for the Columbia University College Republicans.