While some legal spectators have been busy bemoaning the recent decision of Citizens United, others have been more practical-minded. At least one spectator with business acumen, Murray Hill, has explored the newly-opened possibility of running for office as a corporation. His tongue-in-cheek statements – made as a representative of Murray Hill, Inc., of course -- include such things as a desire to “put[] people second, or even third,” and a claim that the corporation would be “the best democracy money can buy.” It’s comforting to know that our new corporate overlords are blessed with a frighteningly dry sense of humor.
While Murray Hill, Inc. is busy attempting to run for office (don’t worry; the corporation is only 5 years old and doesn’t meet the age requirements to hold office), other corporations are satisfied to simply take advantage of the ruling in Citizens United to start donating more money. In fact, nearly a million dollars of corporate money has been donated to one republican campaign in Minnesota. Target, Best Buy, and 3M are the primary drivers in that campaign (it should be noted that 3M was incorporated in 1929 and is of valid age to run for office). Most other Corporations, interestingly, are attempting to stay clear of the political fray and several have pledged to not contribute to any campaigns at all. This is unlikely to be due to low political aspirations, however, and is more likely tied to a desire to not have their products politicized. After all, when I need tape, I want left-wing tape – not that conservative trash they make in Minnesota.
In all seriousness, nobody wishes so see free speech restricted, but the decision in Citizens United goes beyond the preservation of a right and creates something entirely abhorrent. Thomas Jefferson said that “[t]he selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.” Previous Supreme Court cases have held that Corporations are required to operate in that manner (See Ford v. Dodge). The idea that a for-profit corporation, with its massive resources and directives to be self-serving should be afforded the ability to influence our electoral system is revolting.
Many pundits argue that the decision in Citizens United was the obvious choice. They argue that the founding fathers desired that all people would have the freedom of speech and that the right should not be removed simply because individuals chose to organize themselves as a corporation. However, that analysis misses the mark in an obvious and serious manner: not only are those citizens not somehow being deprived of their voice by organizing as a corporation, but, by definition, the corporation which they have formed is not an extension of themselves. That corporation is not formed for the thankless edification of others; it is formed for the purpose of making money. The political views of those who make up the corporation are irrelevant.
The primary differentiation between citizens and corporations when it comes to the electoral system is that citizens may consider, even if they rarely do, the plight of others. Citizens can weigh moral and ethical considerations. Citizens can select a choice that is not in their best interest because it is in the best interest of society. Corporations on the other hand, are legally and physically bound to do what is in their own best interest. That difference makes corporations a dangerous addition to the political battlefield.
I can see allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns. However, this activity should be a mirror image to what normal citizens can donate, or at least, the laws should be stricter. The law could be stricter by specifying the amount of contribution a corporation can make, and the type of activities the corporations can sponsor. The reason that corporations should be allowed to contribute to campaigns is because corporations do have an interest in the political campaigns of politicians.
ReplyDelete“Public Relations” is perhaps one of the only checks on corporate campaign contributions. A corporation that contributes to a political campaign that is very controversial could be signing its own death wish. For example, if a politician has made it perfectly clear that it is in support of abortion, then a corporation would probably abstain from contributing to the campaign. Because abortion creates a population split, a corporation would not risk creating bad public relations and risk losing customers. However, as this article has pointed out, most people either don’t know which company produces what product or concern their selves with politics. Even though this statement may be true, I don’t think corporations would risk creating bad public relations at the expense of losing customers.
ReplyDelete