A more imperfect union

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission may sound, at first, like a case espousing the values of “We the People.” However, it has implemented a change in the relationship between money and finance with a distinct shift towards the notion of “we the corporations.” The ruling, passed down from the Supreme Court of the United States on Jan. 21 by a 5-4 margin, weakens campaign finance restrictions that were originally a part of the acclaimed bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act. Citizens United, a group (little) known for such films as “ACLU: At War With America,” prevailed in its fight to finance the showing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary. Yet the Supreme Court, as Justice John Paul Stevens notes, “changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” The court, led by judicial minimalist John Roberts, has embraced judicial activism to the detriment of individual American citizens.

The ruling brought forth forceful responses from both sides, with conservative activists claiming a victory for free speech and President Barack Obama calling it a victory of “powerful interests ... to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” The case’s jurisprudence essentially relies on two determinations that have overturned several previous decisions—including, most recently, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The Supreme Court decided that corporations are entitled to similar rights as individuals and that money, effectively, is a form of speech. With those two important judgments, the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from restricting the participation of corporations in political campaigns.

While the issue itself is a far larger one than what the facts of the case originally called for, the conclusion remains flawed. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Dartmouth College v. Woodward that “a corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.” Rulings since Dartmouth College have slowly legitimized corporations as people. However, allowing corporations the same rights as individuals ignores several distinct issues. Corporations are accountable, in some cases, to a governing board composed not of its shareholders but of its employees. In this case, corporations become organizations governed by those that may not have a stake in their decisions. Additionally, the corporation’s ability to monopolize the marketplace of ideas is a dangerous threat to the individual’s right to free speech.

One of the most dangerous sections of the ruling nearly legitimizes corruption by narrowing its definition. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court conceded that “speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials” and stated that this interaction is “not corruption.” The majority opinion further states that “[t]he appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.” Obama’s electrion should serve as an example of the effects of the American people’s involvement in the political process. Obama swept into power by claiming to stop special interests and filled his campaign coffers mostly from the wallets of everyday citizens. Citizens United appears to be completely contrary to the mandate the country gave Obama to eliminate unjust influence and corruption in government.

Perhaps most pernicious are the effects that Citizens United may have on future judicial rulings. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, notes that “I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” While soft money contributions directly to candidates remain outlawed, the Court’s affirmation of corporate personhood makes one wonder how soon that provision can last. As Citizens United furthered the previous ruling of Wisconsin Right to Life, it is expected that future cases will follow in its corrupt footsteps. In fact, one case, Republican National Committee v. FEC, is currently being decided in lower courts.

America was founded as a nation “by the people, for the people.” Corporations should not have access to the same rights as individuals. The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United has the potential to derail the progress of American politics, calling to mind the corrupt governance of the Gilded Age. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) phrased it best: “The Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November’s election. It won’t be the Republican or the Democrats, and it won’t be the American people; it will be Corporate America.”

The author is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in economics-political science. He is the president of the Political Science Students Association and the Spectator deputy for online business.