Who is Accountable to Whom?

In business school, I was taught that corporations should be accountable to both shareholders and stakeholders, with stakeholders consisting of employees and the community. Also, I have been taught that politicians should be accountable to voters. Now with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, the Court has changed this philosophy. Instead, politicians will now be accountable to corporations.

This flip has occurred because corporations, as a whole, are probably the largest source of money in the United States. The Citizens United case allows corporations to donate potentially an unlimited amount of money either directly into campaigns or permits corporations to sponsor their own campaign. This unlimited cash flow will ultimately hold politicians accountable to corporations because what politician would have a campaign targeted at Wall Street reform?

Two reasons why politicians should not be held accountable to corporations are as follows. First, politicians will alter their campaigns by not addressing important issues that deal with corporations. Second, politicians will be held accountable to “people” who are not permitted to vote.

First, politicians will alter their campaigns by not addressing important issues that deal with corporations. While it is true that a politician can choose to change their policies after in office, the fact remains that the politician has to be mute on the issue through the campaign. This problem is important because the issue maybe important to the public at large who wants the issue to be addressed. However, because corporations control the majority of the wealth in the United States, the corporations will control the politician’s campaign platform, and the issue will not be addressed. The politician will not address the issue for fear of retaliation from the corporation, who now has the ability to launch its own campaign against the politician.

For instance, imagine the Obama and McCain presidential election if it had occurred after Citizens United. The Obama and McCain presidential election was based primarily on two issues, Wall Street Reform and the War on Terror. By far, Wall Street Reform was an important issue, and an issue that the public wanted the candidates to address. Again assuming this election would have happened after Citizens Untied, how would the issues have been phrased? One assumption would probably be that President Obama would not have boldly targeted Wall Street. However, if President Obama would have continued to target Wall Street, the corporation’s response would probably have been significant enough to alter the outcome of the election. This scenario is not acceptable. The politician is being silenced by a minority of “people” instead of the vast majority.

Second, politicians will be held accountable to “people” who are not permitted to vote.
Politicians should not be held accountable to corporations because corporations cannot vote. Instead, politicians should be held accountable to the natural born citizens of the United States because natural born citizens have the right to vote. This scenario of holding politicians accountable to people who cannot vote undermines the democratic process of the United States.

In conclusion, the decision in Citizens United changed the accountability factor. The decision now holds politicians accountable to corporations because corporations have the potential to sponsor their own campaign and can contribute vast amounts of money into political campaigns. This change is not permissible because politicians will have to alter their campaign platforms to suit corporations, and politicians will now be held accountable to people who cannot vote.