That is the question being considered by the Supreme Court after hearings last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Opinion pieces (The Wall Street Journal is pretty one-sided) and news articles (an example from The New York Times) abound on this issue, but there are really only two sides of this argument.
- Some argue that the First Amendment protects all free speech, including that of corporations and unions, and therefore, privately funded efforts to express an opinion are protected.
- The other side of the argument is that corporations and unions can amass such wealth that they can publish information in a way that either corrupts or distorts the public discourse.
The case before the Supreme Court has the potential to completely upend campaign finance laws, especially the more prohibitive provisions of McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of 2002.
This country has a unique history of political discourse that encourages the formations of associations of private citizens and businesses to coalesce around issues of common importance. However, there is one aspect of this case that troubles me.
The U.S. Constitution was implemented to provide a framework of governance for the citizens of these United States. I don’t believe the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted to give non-citizens the same level of free speech protection as it gives to citizens and legal residents.
The troubling aspect of the case before the Supreme Court is if the court rules in favor of Citizens United and addresses the broad Constitutional question about the free speech rights of corporations. Corporations are owned by individuals and businesses that may include foreign nationals. To extend First Amendment protections to corporations could have the effect of extending those rights to non-citizens. The potential for foreign voices with goals of subverting this nation would then be given the same First Amendment protections that U.S. citizens have.
We have laws in place that prohibit the foreign contributions to campaigns for good reasons. Unless the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case is narrowly focused on the facts of this specific case, there is the potential of inviting our enemies into our political discourse.
Do free speech protections extend to corporations? I think not. What do you think?
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.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Individual commentators, as I said, would have their right to free speech as American citizens. Don’t worry, Glenn Beck would still be able to cry on cue without a gag…
Your article is interesting, but I felt I had nothing to add, and was basically on the fence as to your opinion. I felt inclined towards your argument, which was made in a cogent fashion.
Enter comments from Ms. Bramble, an attractive version of James Carville. My God, talk about turning a issue into an opportunity.
Who would have thought that this upcoming consideration could be twisted into taking away the voice of FOX News and anyone who organizes common folk to fight the socialist machine.
Somehow in spite of the fact the article author may have left leanings, I don’t think he meant to shut up the fourth arm of the people, or the right of citizens to organize into NPO’s, so as to fight what they see as government tyranny.
Just think, under the fairness of such commentators, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and the likes of ACORN would be considered unbiased NPO corps, and right leaning news and groups would be considered political “unconstitutional” NPO corps.
I now see the problem with the authors good points. Good intentions are twisted opportunities for the left.
Just ask “Globo Vision TV”, the last voice against the leftist Chavez machine. They are in danger of jail or bodily harm for opposing the socialist agenda. Chavez says, “They are a corporation, not an individual citizen and therefore have no right to an opinion.
Interesting topic. When a company is incorporated, it is removed from the possession and legal responsibility of any individual person and is spun off into its own entity. Rights in this country are guaranteed to individuals, so since a corporation is not an individual, then in my mind they do not have rights as granted to them by the Constitution.
As far as the press, does an individual reporter have the right to free speech? If they are a citizen, then yes. But do the news corporations have it? In my mind , no. Even if you could argue that corporations held by American citizens should have rights, I would argue that with individuals the right to free speech outweighs any harm that an individual could do. That is not the case for a corporation, which has the resources and access to exposure that could allow it to do a great deal of harm. Therefore they need to be held accountable. That’s where truth in advertising laws and other such regulation come into play.
The right was established so that individuals would not be persecuted for protesting the law or the government. Corporations, due to their size and power, do not need the level of protection that an individual does when exercising the right of free speech.
If the members of this group Citizens United want to avoid being held individually responsible for any consequences that arise from their actions by incorporating themselves, then they need to accept that they give away some of the rights that have been granted to them as individuals.
{ 1 trackback }