Freedom of Speech?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. Amend. I. The protection of the freedom of speech has surfaced in a variety of contexts. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission exasperated the debate with respect to the freedom of speech of corporations. Let’s pause for a moment and consider the most basic thoughts that one attributes to the freedom of speech clause in the first amendment. Merriam Webster defines speech as

a : the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words b : exchange of spoken words : conversation
2 a : something that is spoken : utterance b : a usually public discourse : address
3 a : language, dialect b : an individual manner or style of speaking
4 : the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speech.

With today's technology and numerous communication outlets it is easy to see how a debate can arise over the freedom of speech.

In Citizens United, the Court noted that “Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker.” Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 891 (2010). Let’s set aside the deeper argument of whether corporations are “people” for one moment. Consider now, the most basic definition of speech. Can a corporation express thoughts in spoken words? Not really, representatives from the corporation can speak on behalf of the entity. The corporate name can also be affixed to articles, advertisements, websites, etc. See footnote 55.

It is clear then why the general public may find the ruling in Citizens United puzzling. Looking into the matter one will quickly locate articles and petitions for limiting the first amendment to the freedom of speech of people. One such example is the website Public Citizen. The site currently has 71,415 signatures. http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190. The commentary makes it clear that the signatories are outraged. For example, “I don't ever want to see another election taken over by attack ads from persons/corporations unknown as we saw in the 2010 Midterm elections. That is not democracy as I understand it!”

Immediately preceding the holding in Citizens United, the Court notes that
“[m]odern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the ‘purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value’ in order to engage in political speech. 2 U.S.C. § 431(9)(A)(i). Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election.” Id. at 917. The Court continues by stating “[t]he First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.” Id. (quoting McConnell v. Federal Election Com'n, 540 U.S. 93, 341, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003)).

The short of it is that corporations are now permitted to make unlimited political expenditures. I do not buy into the fact that money equals speech but for now…maybe it does.