Thoughts on Citizens United: why i disagree with the Courts decision

With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decided that corporations and unions may now directly and expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office, as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with campaigns or political parties. The impacts of this decision will be immense and far-reaching, both for nonprofit voter engagement and political discourse as a whole.

The majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that limits on “independent expenditures” by corporations violate the First Amendment right to free speech. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which the Citizens United decision partially invalidated, prohibited corporations (including nonprofit organizations) and labor unions from airing any “electioneering communications” – broadcast messages that refer to a federal candidate 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election. Older law also barred corporations from using monies from their general treasuries for “express advocacy,” to directly urge the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

The opinion stems from a controversy caused by a clash between Citizens United, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, and regulations crafted by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The nonprofit group wanted to release a film on a cable TV video-on-demand service about former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary. The group also wanted to promote the film with several ads. The critical movie was partially funded by corporate contributions, in violation of BCRA and FEC regulations.

In its holding, the Court overturned long-standing precedent, ruling that banning corporations from using money from their general treasuries for express advocacy was an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment political free speech rights. In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy, stated that there was “no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.”

This historic decision specifies that the First Amendment protect corporations and unions the same as individuals with regard to the ability to spend money to influence elections. I find this decision quit disturbing for the following reasons. First, to say that a corporation with billions to spend on advertising is no different from a human being with only one voice and one vote is beyond my understanding. For example, since the law recognizes corporations as legal person deserving of equal protection as any individual person or citizen, should corporations also be allowed to vote as people do because they are legal citizen?

Secondly, the Court overturned a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law that prohibited corporate-and union-funded campaign advertising within 90 days of a federal election. As a result of this decision, corporations can now spend unlimited amount of dollars to influence our elections, right up to Election Day. Similarly, whereas more than $5 billion was spent on the 2008 campaigns with the McCain-Feingold law in place, now it is uncertain how much corporations and unions would spend to influence future elections. Furthermore, whereas Citizens United was a case about a corporation spending money to advertise and air a movie that amounted to a “hit piece” on a viable president candidate, now there are no limits on the funding of that sort of negative campaign material. Any candidate who doesn’t toe the corporate line can look forward to a flood of opposition cash.