On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, in a close 5-to-4 vote, ruled that the government cannot ban political spending by corporations in elections or “electioneering communications”—defined as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office; is made within 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate, or 30 days before a primary or preference election; or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate.”
In the case, Citizens United, “an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control,” sought after an injunction against the Federal Election Commission to prevent the application of the McCain-Feingold law, or Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie, a TV documentary which expressed opinions about whether Senator Hilary Clinton would make a good president and was released as she campaigned for the Democratic nomination.
This was just another clause of the BCRA law, which banned unlimited contributions to political parties, that the court struck down. Federal law still prohibits corporations and unions from donating money directly to campaigns and candidates, but special interests will now have even more power and influence on politicians.
Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that, "the Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment." Yet, is it really logical to corporations as individuals with civil liberties? The ruling could have excluded TV documentaries from the ban, or could have made the clear distinction between non-profit political advocacy groups and big-money corporate interests.
Think about the power now given to oil companies like Exxon Mobil and huge Wall Street banks, and the major sway they may soon have on policy making. While some may argue that restricting campaign spending inhibits their First Amendment right of freedom of speech, this change will potentially have very negative effects on our democracy. Our nation’s founders, when drafting the Constitution, were wary of the dangers of corporate influence on the electoral process and do not mention the protection of corporations.
While this case is certainly a groundbreaking decision the court already ruled in 2007 that corporations and unions were protected from speech restrictions as long as they did not explicitly endorse or oppose a candidate. Now, they can take their advertisements one step further. In connection to issue of special interests, this ruling could be detrimental to political parties. Corporations, special interest groups and other independent groups that fund or create political advertisements often take extreme positions on issues and could further polarize Democrats and Republicans.
A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign has the strong potential to reduce “the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached,” as ruled in a landmark 1976 Supreme Court case, Buckley v. Valeo. However, by allowing corporations to spend enormous amounts of money, we will see the agendas of the most wealthy companies prevail. Many will argue that this class of the richest and most powerful corporations has equally competing interests, but even
Be the first to comment on this article!