Corporate Campaign Speech
In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. Efforts at campaign reform have restricted contributions from corporations and unions. Also, in the concept of full disclosure, certain contributions and advertising were prohibited within the last 30 days before an election. With full disclosure, voters could react favorably or unfavorably to special interest electioneering.
Citizens United produced an attack on Hilary Clinton to run on DirecTV days before one of the primary elections. A lower court ruled that this violated existing campaign law restricting advertising in the final days of political campaigns. The Supreme Court has now ruled 5-4 that this was protected speech. Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent, “The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past.”
I think there is a false equation of campaign contribution money and freedom of speech. Consistent with current campaign interpretation we should differentiate between issue advertising and direct contributions or specific reference to candidate or party.
I think the Constitution protects media speech on controversial subjects (lower taxes, abortion, gun-rights, ethical and moral values) so long as there is no mention of party or candidate, even though the bias is blatantly obvious. I think this should include corporations, unions, NRA, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Tea Party Nation, and Political Action Committees.
Ideally and philosophically, I would favor limiting campaign contributions to individuals (not PACS, corporations, or pressure groups) who are eligible to vote within the boundaries served by the office holder (e.g. national, state, county, municipality, civil district).
The history of constitutional decisions coming from the Supreme Court has been a trend toward the rights of the individual as opposed to institutions and government (slavery, voting rights, compelled speech, religious freedom, racial discrimination, gender or sexual orientation equality, illegal search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment). I think the current configuration of the Court has the potential of reversing that trend. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) is a landmark decision.
We tend to use references to individual freedom in the comparison of our polarity of liberal and conservative, and in trying to define strict constructionist or activist judges.
In order to protect our individual rights we must restrict big business, institutions, and political activist organizations. If I understand the ruling, there is little or no restraint on direct corporate contributions to candidates and parties. If the Court has determined that corporations have the same rights as an individual, then corporations should have limits of contributions, if it has that right, which I would question.
While I realize the controversy relates to potential monetary amounts, I still do not think direct contributions from any institution has the same First Amendment protection as individuals. If corporations are allowed to fund this kind of campaign message, including support for or opposition to specific candidates or political parties, we have diminished the political integrity of the individual. The advantage this decision gives to bigness (corporations and other special interest groups) could have a long-term impact on elected offices and appointed court justices.
As much as we would like to believe the Judiciary is non-partisan, to me the importance of having Barack Obama in the Presidency is exhibited by the make-up of the Supreme Court in this decision. Court Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia have been cited by Republican presidents as examples of astute constitutional strict constructionists. Stevens, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg have been denigrated as activist judges who “legislate from the bench.” We, as Democrats and Liberals and Moderates see this alignment as a delicate balance in the historical and philosophical interpretation of individual rights.
Explore posts in the same categories: Judicial DecisionsTags: Campaign Reform, Supreme Court
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
January 24, 2010 at 5:59 pm
What has discredited this decision of funding by the Supreme Court is the loss of intellectual honesty. No one in his right mind can honestly claim that a corporation or a labor union is a person. The author is correct in noting this decision diminishes the role of the individual.
January 25, 2010 at 4:50 am
It seems like the Conservative Majority of judges on the Supreme Court are “legislating from the bench”. This was the main criticism the Conservatives had of any decision that went against their stated ideals. Why then is it acceptable for the Conservative Judges to do this NOW when it was so wrong just a couple of years ago…?
January 29, 2010 at 11:28 pm
I agree that there is a false equation between speech and campaign contributions and that there is a false equations between corporations and persons. And that equation to me is intriguing; I don’t know how the Court justifies it. Activist and loose with language…
It doesn’t matter what you paid for, you still must be present to win (it’s one voice/one vote- not four votes for a dollar); or, can speech be said to be free if you have to pay for it? What do people actually “say” with their money? “I want to eat”, “Ooh, I like that thing and want to own it” or “Gee, if I give you this much, you must do that much”. Politicians are said to be bought by money in that last sense, but, instead it is access to politicians that is being bought- ‘access’ is not the same thing as ‘speech’, it’s just an opportunity to use speech with an expectation of extraordinary influence or access, depending on how much one, or a group of ones, can spend. Buying access is buying a privilege and privilege is conferred to some at the exclusion of others. Free speech is not the issue with corporate campaign dollars, unequal access, or privilege, is. Privilege is not protected speech.
Allowing a corporation ‘personhood’ overshoots its identity; what is essentially an association, or a common relationship among its persons, is a person plus something more and that something more could give it unequal advantage.
Incorporation describes what is essentially an association, or a relationship among persons in such a way that the individuals become more than just themselves- part of another entity. Corporations or large groups can associate individuals to each other but could not be true incorporations without individuals. It is a state of being associated, or a legal designation that x is incorporated with something not x.
Individual describes a state of being indivisible. It makes no sense to talk about an individual as an association, although, each could be in association with someone or something. ‘Corporate individual’ has got to be a kind of oxymoron; I’m pretty sure it’s not in any kind of protected category listed somewhere in the rest of the Constitution.