I don’t know how many of you have been following the case of Citizens United v. the FEC, but I’m willing to bet a goodly number of you have an opinion on it.  Here’s mine, again, on the heels of today’s Supreme Court ruling.

I’ve been following the case in a fairly limited way.  I’ve kept abreast of all the new developments through Jacob Sullum’s articles on reason.com ( here, here, here, here, here, and here.  The guy is passionate about this case.), and I’ve had a couple of interesting discussions about it here and there on various forums and bulletin boards I post on as well.  I even managed to write a post about it on this site, found here.  

I find the case extremely fascinating, mainly because of the two possibilities I see stemming from today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court to remove the restrictions currently placed on corporations in the exercise of free speech right before an election.

Intriguing Possibility #1: There go the Libertarians.

The possible problem (for me, at least) with increasing corporate advocacy in elections is this:  Corporate sponsors aren’t going to back candidates who disagree with their positions or have no chance of winning.  This could have the effect of pushing political campaign contributions towards more moderate candidates, destroying the possibilities of some of my more-radical political heros like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff from gaining the kind of national recognition they’ve garnered recently.

And the other possibility, the one I want to address here:

Intriguing Possibility #2: The Democrats fling themselves off the proverbial cliff of law.

This is highlighted extremely well by the Huffington Post (which I have yet to quit reading for some odd reason), in an article by Arthur Delaney.

President Obama and congressional leaders have vowed to fight back against Thursday morning’s Supreme Court decision rolling back restrictions on corporate campaign spending. Among the possible responses under consideration: an amendment to the Constitution.

The suggested amendment would strip a corporation’s personhood for First Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court ruled that federal restrictions on corporate money for campaign advertisements violated corporations’ free speech rights.

“It’s time to take matters into our own hands to enact a constitutional amendment that once and for all declares that we the people govern our elections and campaigns, not we the corporations,” said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) in a video produced by a coalition of progressive groups led by Public Citizen and Voter Action.

“This is a ruling that really jeopardizes the rights of ordinary Americans to have a voice in the political process,” Edwards told HuffPost.

Well, aside from the ludicrous notion that the Democrats think they could convince any of the nation’s “red states” to back them in urinating on the First Amendment as part of the “3/4s of the states required to pass a Constitutional Amendment” clause of the Constitution, and the obvious hypocrisy on the part of the Congresswoman from Maryland in using groups exactly like Citizens United to produce her video against Citizens United and their video, I want to re-examine the logic behind the idea they’ve put forth, namely, that corporations aren’t people, thus undeserving of the freedoms granted to citizens in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in more detail.

What are corporations made up of?

People.

Why do people form corporations?

To better achieve a goal. In this case, the goal is the pursuit of higher profits and returns on their money.

What are some other groups which form for the purpose of helping the individuals involved achieve a goal?

Unions. Greenpeace. PETA. The Sierra Club. The AARP. The NAACP. Churches. The NRA.

Do you think that the individuals who make up the group “PETA” should be unable to pool their money and make campaign donations to politicians who are pro-animal “rights”?

Do you think the Unions should be forced to stop running ads for politicians who support them?

Do you think that the NAACP should be prohibited from supporting politicians who are determined to advance the cause of colored people?

Why do you believe that each of the people in these organization have the freedom of speech, the freedom to contribute money to a political cause, but lose that freedom when they organize and join an association?

If every individual enjoys the freedom of speech, why shouldn’t a group of individuals also have that freedom?

Furthermore, what are the two main political parties if not groups of people with a common goal joining together to increase their chances of achieving that goal (In this case, to elect either Democrats or Republicans)? If we’re going to prohibit one group of people from coming together to make a political statement, or work to achieve a political goal, from having the freedom of speech, why shouldn’t we prohibit all groups of people who come together to achieve a political goal from exercising their freedom of speech?

And lastly, the text of the 1st Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, when I see the phrase “abridging the freedom of speech”, I don’t see it limited to any particular class of people. Do you?

When I see the phrases “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”, I see permission for people to come together, peacefully, much as they do in a corporation, and that they then have the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which is also not limited. Thus, shouldn’t a peaceful association of people (the corporation) have the freedom to support candidates who have promised to help them address a grievance?

Of course.  And this is precisely the point argued by Justice Kennedy:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin ‘s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form.  Link

(I’ve made that argument a hundred times if I’ve made it once, and it’s really nice to see a USSC Justice argue it as well.)

Whether or not it hurts the cause of the minor party candidates of the future, there is simply no rationale which can explain to me why the free speech of individuals grouped together in a corporation may be limited.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: on the law, politics & government // 4 Comments »