As he emerged from the Constitutional Convention Ben Franklin was asked, “What have you given us?” Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” After the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission it would be more apt to say that we have a Republic, if you can afford it. In a 5 to 4 ruling the court has undone three previous Supreme Court rulings and extended the full rights of a person to any and all corporations. Justices Roberta, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy made up the majority, while Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Stevens dissented. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, Justice Stevens the dissenting opinion.
What was at issue in that particular case were the restrictions places on corporations, both for profit and not, as well as unions by election rules passed in 1907 and mirrored in the Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Those two acts stated that all corporations and unions could make donations through their PAC’s only. They were also prohibited from publishing ads on television, radio, or the internet specifically targeting a candidate, within 30 days of a Primary Election or Nominating Convention or 60 days of a General Election. Corporations were also strictly prohibited from spending funds from their general treasury for the proposes of campaigning for a specific candidate, the money spent could only come from their respective PACs. With this ruling the Supreme Court has basically dynamited the dam.
As stated, the ruling grants the full rights of a person, specifically the full right of free speech to corporations and unions. With this granting of full first amendment rights all restrictions on the amount of money that can be spend during a campaign, as well as when, and where that money can come from are removed. There is however a distinction to be made. Since Corporations and Unions are now defined as persons under the law they are subject to the same restrictions for campaign contributions as any individual citizen. Corporations and unions may only donate $108,000 per election cycle to any candidate or candidates’ campaign fund. The removal of restrictions that is at issue here applies specifically to political speech. Political speech in this case is defined as advertisement, television, radio, and internet. While individual candidates will not benefit directly in terms of expanded donations of campaign funds, they will benefit indirectly in the form of massive ad buys by interested third parties both for them and against their opposition.
The implications here are staggering. Take this as an example. In the closing weeks of October a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives if running ahead of his Republican opponent in Michigan. The Democrat is pro union and has the full backing of the UAW. The Republican has vowed to introduce legislation limiting the power of unions. General Motors decided that it’s in their interest to support the Republican and insure that he wins because a weaker UAW means more profits for GM. As such, GM spends 25 million dollars (theirs, not bailout money) on an attack add and a Pro Republican add in the two weeks before the general election. This same scenario could be played out in reverse, with the UAW spending millions on ads just before the election to help a candidate the support.
The most dire consequences could come in 2012 during the Presidential Election. In 2008 the length and amount of money raised and spent by both campaigns were staggering. Now envision this, the nightmare scenario. During the primaries on the Republican side, a little known member of the House of Representatives makes his campaign about tax cuts for the highest earners, corporations, and removing all federal regulations on corporations. No Department of Transportation regulations on trucks, trains or airplanes. No OSHA regulations in the work place. No regulations on what chemicals may and may not be used. All Federal regulations removed so that corporations were completely free to operate as they wish. Think of what would happen to his campaign if Corporations seeing the ability to operate without restrictions collectively spent $500 million in advertisements. Liberals and Conservatives can disagree on what amount of regulation is a good thing, but we can all agree that corporations should not be able to use lead paint on children’s toys, or that asbestos should not be used in schools. With the rules now rewritten, any company, or group of companies, can funnel unlimited finds into advertisements for candidates whose positions best fit them, making them beholden to them for their reelections. Think of the possibility in our lifetime, of the President of the United States owing his election to hundreds of millions in add furnished by big oil, or the Banking Industry. We could see the day when the President could be a wholly owned subsidiary of Citi Group, or AIG, or SEIU, or the AFL-CIO, or Bank of America. All of those are terrifying, that every Senator, ever Governor, every member of the House of Representatives, and even the President could be bought and sold, elected and replaces like any other commodity. The voice of the average citizen would become a pale hum in the background to the overpowering chorus of the corporation. The transformation would be complete and this would be the government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, the people be damned.
This article published first by John Festa on the Left Turn Blog.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
When a stand alone peice, be it radio, television, or movie specifically addresses a candidate in an election year when that person is either running for re-election, or for a higher office, thats a campaign ad. Micheal Moore’s movies do not specifically target a political figure, only address them in the context of discussing an issue. The are also not released prior to an election specifically advocating vor or against a candidate. You may not like what he says, but there is a difference. It ‘s particularly easy to see. the Hillary movie specifically addressed a candidate, advocated against her and was released during the primary. That’s a campaign ad.
In this case the court ruled that a corporation spending its money on campaign ads was political speech, protected by free speech. That means that the spending of all money on political campaigns is political speech and is therefore free speech. That means that when it comes to the financing of ads the corporations now have, because of the removel of all restrictions, a vastly deeper, almost unlimited, and disporportinatly larger voice in terms of political speech (money) than do the average citicen.
The welthiest person as an individual, were they to file to establish themselves as a corporation would not have the resources to compete in terms of political speech (money) with the largest corporations. We’ll take your favorite George Soros as an example. If he were to incorporate himself, and use his personal forture for the publishing of campaign ads, would he be able to match the contriputions made by the oil industry. The answer is obviously no. Exon Mobil anlone has posted well over $40 Billion dollars in profits in a given year, just one company. All of the oil companies may draw upon all of their profits to publish ads now. If Mr. Soros advocates for the Democrats, and the oil industry for the Republicans, who has the louder more robust voice. The answer is the corporations. Unlimited spending on campaign ads when defined as political speach means that corporations now had a disporportinatly louder voice, and in terms of dollars, the majority voice in American politics. The voice of the people in the public debate now leading up to an election is now the minority voice.
JFesta
Your opinion of the Hillary movie is just that opinion. It was not a 2 hour long campaign piece. Moore is allowed to do hit pieces all the time, but you would not allow one about Hillary? Hypocrite.
As for spending on political commercials when was the last time an average citizen bought a commercial to expouse his views? Squelching the speach of citizens? The only voice we have is with our vote. When Joe Sixpack runs and ad about politics I’ll eat my hat. (And it doesn’t look tasty.)
Think about the example you use, there is a difference. Micheal Moore makes documentaries about issues, gun control, healthcare etc. he obviously has a very liberal view and he protrays that in his films. The movie in question in the suit was a feature length campaign comercial, and it was set to air inside the 60 day limit for outside ads.
Further to your point, Free speech is not an absoulte freedom, we do place limits on speech. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theater. Their is also the exemption whem it comes to speach that specifically insties to violence. The classic example is you can not rethorically whit a crowd into a frenzy and then say the bag guys are over there, lets go get them.
The existing laws did not prohibit the speech (money) of corporations. It places a responsable limit. The money must come from PAC’s, not from general in house money, and it can not be used for ads 30 days out from primaries or conventions, and 60 days out from general elections. In this instance the same type of limitation on speech (money) exists for the private citizen. They are limited to $108,000 per election cycle, and have a cap on how much thay can give at one time. Not a prohibition, but a responsible limit. You may speak your mind on any topic without fear of government reprisal, but you may not cause a panic in a crowded place. You may donate to a candidate, but if you have vast resources, you may not use those to overshadow the average citizen i.e. you may not give $1 million dollars when the average citizen may only be able to give $1,000, but you may give $10,000.
Jfesta,
Don’t get me wrong I do not believe that this is a GREAT thing. However, when it comes to freedom of speach it’s a constitutional issue. You can’t simply DENY speach to one group or the other and not do it for all. And I will remind you this decision came about because of a movie. Are we to stop Michael Moore because he is a business from making his movies that are anti-republican? Where does it stop? When you give away a freedom you seldom get it back.
Consti,
Explain this. How is a corporation, something created by an act of legislation, something that is nothing more than a set of legal forms equal to a person. How do the individual rights granted to every living breathing walking talking thinking citizen of the United States apply to a corporation. Is a corporation, a legal filing the same as a person, and if they are equal to a person, do they get to vote, does a corporation get called for jury duty. Why does a legal filing deserve the same rights I have, and you have.
The Constitution starts “We the people” , Peaple, not corporation. The individual people who make up those corporations already have all of the individual rights of a citizen.
According to this ruling, money equals speach. If that is the case, what happens to my $10 of speach, or $50, or $100 when a large corporation can contribute 100 times that. The individual people become the minority voice.
Corporations are a legally created status, not a constitutionally created one. Inalienable rights are those rights that originate from birth. No one or no thing is BORN as a corporation. In order to BECOME a corporation, you have to go through a legal process that declares an organization is a corporation. You cannot just wake up one day and declare yourself to be a corporation. Corporations were not made one and the same as a person until this court decision.
I find it interesting that it is a conservative group that filed this lawsuit and that it was conservative justices who chose to interpret this status out of the constitution and reverse years of judicial precedent from a multitude of courts. The Constitution left what could be considered a “grey area” because corporations did not exist at the time it was written, so they were not specifically addressed, and the conservative justices of the court drove a mack truck through it.
JFesta,
Point taken. However, again it comes down to free speach. You can’t have it for some and not others. Until corporations are constitutionally seperate from citizens then they have the same rights. That’s called equality under the law. Something civil rights has been advocating for decades.
Just the amount of “facts” that come off the internet to be quoted as the gospel truth by many, including some on this site, is proof of the inability of far too many Americans to see through advertising.
Madison Avenue spends 24 hours, 365 days a year thinking of ways to invade our psyches and deliver the desired message and has for about 100 years now. The average American spends far less time dissecting these messages, if any at all. We watch at least an hour of commercials a night- do we spend an hour examining them for their merits? We Americans complain about the little bit of time we have to think about already…don’t ask us to use our brains any more, especially with the deck stacked against us.
Please- the average American against the whole of corporate America and their subsidaries. That’s a David and Goliath scenario if ever there was one.
Consti,
I should have more faith in my fellow citizens? According to Pew Research, only 18% of adults knew that the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that was working on Healthcare legislation was Max Baucus. Only 56% knew the public option was part of Healthcare reform. 33% knew Ben Bernanke was chairman of the FED, and only 23% knew that “Cap and Trade” was part of energy legislation. Now we both know that polls are far from spot on accurate, but if these numbers are even in the general neighborhood then most of these people are only vaguely aware they are on planet Earth. Have faith in my fellow citizens? If these people are representative of our fellow citizens I wouldn’t have faith they could get a coffee run correct.
JFesta,
Yes advertising sways opinion. Mostly though it is seen through. You should have more faith in your fellow citizen. You are assuming just because one company runs an add that another won’t run a counter ad. All this means is there will be more garbage on tv. Just look at cspan.
Ben,
Oh, and since corporations now have rights, they can sue private individuals for infringing on them. The court will now be able to decide whose rights are more valid- a corporation’s ( potentially a foreign owned one ) or yours. Guess who can afford to have much better lawyers on staff to devote to the case full time?
It’s only the First Amendment…for now…The legal precedent has been set.
Ben,
Rights were guaranteed to the citizens of America because they were inalienable, “God” given rights. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t remeber anything in the bible that says “And on the eighth day, God created corporations. Corporations were conceived, in large part, to sheild owners from having to take individual responsibility for the liabilities of the corproation, ie. a disgruntled customer can sue the company, but cannot sue the president/owner personally. Since large corporations are owned by share holders, this can protect a lot of people. The purpose of a corporation is to take the individual out of it. But a corporation now has rights the same as an individual? That’s BS.
If the Constitution does not say one way or the other (which it wouldn’t because the corporation did not EXIST at the time), then it is up to the court to decide. The fact that the conservative justices upended both the desire of the people via their lawmakers and generations of legal precedent displays the same kind of “judicial activism” that they have slammed liberal justices for. It is hypocritical and their ruling was wrong. It is an assault on the status of all citizens in this country.
While it seems out there, JFesta’s point about corporations as citizens is right on. Not only do corporations get special treatment due to their money and influence, they now get special treatment over human beings in the eyes of the law as well.
And you still point to the government as the source of corruption oand oppression? Blind yourself to the true threat while continuing to chace shadows…What is your life, liberty, happiness, etc worth on a corporate balance sheet? Not much, my friend…
Then I guess all those raids ICE preforms are just photo ops? I’m trying to have it both ways? You’re the one saying that the Constitution grants the individual rights of a citizen to a corporaation, but technically they arent citizens. Which is it. they either are or they aren’t
Since illegals are allowed to voice their opinion and march in the streets with their native country flags held high in the air, all without fear of retribution or deportation, why should a corporation have everything seized simply for doing business in America? Again, you can’t have it both ways.
I’m not arguing that corporations are citizens. What I’m saying is that the ruling is valid since the Constitution makes no distinction. If Congress wants to create a Constitutional Amendment that would take that standing away from corporations, then so be it. But, since even non-profits are corporations, even the George Soros machine would grind to a halt.
OK Ben, according to your arguement a corporation has all the individual rights every citizen has. Theirfore a corporation is a citizen. Lets move forward from that arguement. Any american corporation that is incorporated offshore for the purposes of avoiding the Federal income tax is technically not a citizen. they are from another country working in the U.S. Since those corporations have never been natralised, they are here illegaly, and subject to the same penalities as any person. Starting Monday, I think ICE should void all their contracts, seize all company property and assets, and completely shut down all their operations, pending completion of the natralization process. When you think about all the companies that avoid their taxes that way, that could be a few trillion dollars in assets. Might be a nice way to pay down the debt and pay for healthcare.
Still like this ruling?
Jfesta – You failed to address the main points of my comment, which directly address the Obama administrations arguments in their attempt to keep McCain-Feingold intact.
Would you be willing to disallow political free speech for a specific demographic? White? Black? American Indian? Oriental? Hispanic? If not, why limit a corporation in its’ ability to speak its’ mind? Political free speech is not limited to individual persons, but must be extended to all entities.
Ben,
Have you suffered a head injury recently, been in a coma or a persistant vegatative state? Liberal causes and candidates have an advantage? Since 1970 only 4 Presidential elections have been won by Democrats counting Barack Obama in 2008. The others are one by Jimmy Carter and two by Bill Clinton. If the media gave liberals such a huge advantage you think maybe a few more of those elections would be wins in the Democratic colum? The ERA got slaughtered in the media and hasn’t been viable since and all it says is women should be considered equal to men. And you think Liberals have an advantage in the press.
As far as leveling the playing field when it comes to advertising, are you kidding? Freaking Fox News advertised on MSNBC!! The anchors at each network may dislike eachother with a passion but damn if Ruperts money ain’t as green as everyone else is. If the Klan came to the New York Times saying we want to run a full page ad for 10 weeks here’s $100,000 that ad will be in every edition and the ad sales manager will be giggling all the way to the bank. Ad sales are about money, no one cares what its pushing as long as the check clears the ad runs.
On a personal note, if you don’t care, keep your mouth shut. If you do, show a little respect.
Consti, (whomever you are)
I completely understand what a rep is their for, they should speak for the people. Lets face facts, money talks, and while 10% of the population does their homework and learns how these people vote on issues that effect them, 90% believe the 30 second ads. Advertising sways opinion, always has.
Ben,
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Cudos.
Jfesta,
That’s sort of the point. If you want to uphold the constitution and freedom of speech then you need to change the constitution to clearly define corporations as not having the rights of a citizen. Fair is fair after all and if you are going to limit speach for one group who’s to say that they won’t do it for another? You are making the assumption that officials will vote the way their largest doners want them too. That’s not what a rep is there for. So as a means of political measurment of the quality of candidate I am fine with this. Constituants vote, not companies. If the public sees that a politician is hurting them for the sake of a corporation they will be voted out. Besides the fact that corporations are already dumping money into groups (Soros) that CAN advertise so really it changes nothing.
We already have a President who is a “wholly owned subsidiary of Citi Group, or AIG, or SEIU, or the AFL-CIO, or Bank of America.”
Reference – Stimulus Bill, and special deals for unions (i.e. SEIU & AFL-CIO) in the Healthcare Package.
Think about this – The vast majority of news outlets in the U.S. are, at best, liberal leaning. Consider that their editorial content has a liberal slant. Should an organization want to buy an ad in their publication that happens to support a conservative candidate or cause, they are under no obligation to publish or air that article. This, in and of itself, gives the liberal causes and candidates a huge advantage in terms of getting their message out.
What this ruling tries to do is level the playing field. Now, corporations and non-profit organizations can do what they have been unable to do until now – get their message out. Even if they can’t get air time or their ads in the paper, maybe they can make a movie to further a conservative cause and/or point of view and market it to those who want to see and hear it. You know, much like the liberal mouth-piece Michael Moore has been able to do uninhibited and able to release whatever movie he chooses whenever he chooses regardless of content.
What I find ironic is that many on the left argue that the First Amendment protects a corporations right to publish and distribute pornography and obscenity, but not the right to freely speak out about candidates for the presidency of the United States.
In March, when arguments were first heard in this case, the president’s Solicitor General argued the case. Justice Samuel Alito asked, if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. “That’s pretty incredible,” Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations. “If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.
If this is the mentality of the current administration, where do they stop? Granted, when Elena Kagan argued this case in September she said the pamphlets, not books, could be banned (realizing, I guess, that the court was not happy w/ her colleagues answer just a few months earlier). When Chief Justice John Roberts asked her about pamphlets, here’s what she said: “A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering.” But, at what word count does a pamphlet become a book, or a book become a pamphlet? This is political censorship of the worst kind.
Free speech is free speech – it is granted to one and all – corporations and individuals. If you don’t like that, I don’t care.
NO, corporations are NOT automatically guaranteed their rights under the Constitution. Corporations as we know them did not yet exist when the Constitution was written. The NYSE did not open until AFTER.
The Amercians citizens who work for and own the corporation have rights on their own as individuals- they do not get a collective second set under the auspices of a corporation, which does not have the same degree of liability or responsibility for their rights as citizens do. And what about foreign owned corporations or corporations that employ foreigners in other countries. By giving corporations rights, you are in effect giving these non-citizens the same rights as a US citizen as a part of a collective group.
Are you really that clueless in your obvious desire to play toadie to any conservative cause? Are you really that shortsighted? I hope you like the taste of your nose because you continually try to bite it off to spite your face.
Are you on the take too? Or just hoping that you will get noticed with your off-point incoherent ramblings as “one of the faithful” so you can get your pieces of silver? Sir, you ain’t no Bill O’Rielly or Neil Boortz. What you are is a joke.
The conservative justices did EXACTLY what liberal judges are accused of doing all the time. They made a broad sweeping ruling that re-interpreted the Constitution with the slightest and most convoluted of basis and overturned years of judicial precident based on multiple rulings. Next thing you know, they’ll give vacuum cleaners, goldfish and cars the protection of the Bill of Rights too…
The problem with this ruling isn’t that one party of the other will benefit from it, it’s that every elected official will. Everyone who wants to win another term will be willing to let corporations spend untold millions on ad buys to help them stay in office. The problem is the ones on the receiving end of favorable ads will be those most willing to help big business. How good would it be for the average citizen if the Credit Card industry decided to push a Democratic candidate over the top because he’s willing to push a bill that would allow they to raise interest rates above 45% without notice.
What happens to the voice of the people in elections when they speak with one vote, but corporations and unions speak with hundreds of millions of dollars? Where is the incentive to serve the interest of the people when serving those with the most money gets you reelected again and again no matter how you vote? This may be constitutionally correct, but the people lose.
George
You are missing the big picture here. Corporations are afforded the same rights as citizens under the constitution. You can’t cry about your freedom of speech while denying others theirs. Freedom of speech is a FUNDAMENTAL right and if you curtail it for one you have to for all. And you forget the biggest donors to the Democrats has been pharmaceutical companies. So Dimocrats will benefit just as Republicans will from this decision. If you think the progressive liberals won’t take Soros’s money you are being naive. This decision was exactly correct from a constitutional standpoint.
And the friht-wingers say nothing- out of shame I think, since it was their own justices that passed this monstrosity. Not only does their vast array of money make corps my siperior but now they have the same legal rights that I do…Gotta love it. Not to mention what this does in terms of foreign corporations that will now open “subsidieries” and “branches” in the US.
Thanks Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. Since you aren’t elected, what did you get- a luxury vacay, new house or car or stocks? And the fright-wingers want to throw “cause for impeachment” around about Obama. How bout we start looking into how to impeach a justice…