Serving Society?

The Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission case was based on concerns surrounding the rights of the Constitution’s 1^st Amendment and infringement of a corporation’s free speech. 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010). Namely, a corporation’s freedom to finance campaigns. Before this case, following Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, corporations were not permitted to use their treasury to support or oppose candidates in elections. 494 U.S. 552. The question turned on whether a corporation had the right as a citizen or person to spend money on campaign advertising?

In this landmark Supreme Court decision of Citizen’s United held that federal restrictions on a corporation advocating candidates in an election were unconstitutional. Following this decision, a corporation is said to be a person, with 1^st Amendment rights. Now, corporations are permitted to run their own ads in support of a candidate, but are not allowed to contribute directly to the candidate. As part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, citizens, in conjunction with their 1^st Amendment freedom of speech rights, may spend money on political advertising for a candidate. However, in support the contributor must disclose themselves and the amount of money donated. However, following Citizen’s United, a strong requirement of corporations to disclose this information, has not been seen.

In the wake of the Citizen’s United holding allowing corporations to spend money on political campaigns there has been a substantial increase in spending. Statistics for 2008 show $2.8 billion dollars on campaign support. Nearly doubling in 2010 at close to $4 billion. it is reported that a large majority of this influx has come from outside, independent sources in response to Citizen’s United’s 2010 decision. In this past week’s West Virginia election, Conservatives outspent Liberals at a ratio of 2:1 and won the Senate. Does this mean that speech equals money? Possibly, especially when shown in these local elections that $12.7 million spent on the senatorial race came from advocacy groups that were not party related.

We must further ask whether this new money pumped into campaign elections interferes with a citizen’s ability to decide elections. Chief Justice Marshall describes a corporation as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law." Given that corporations are often considered profit-maximizing creatures of the state, there may not be a direct correlation between the interests influenced by the wealth of a corporation and the actual needs and wants of the people. Were the results of the 2010 West Virginia election the voice of the people and their needs or were they the voice of the people influenced by a corporation’s support of a candidate, pursuing their own corporate financial agendas?

Although, Citizen’s United is said to have overruled the concerns above, Congress should readdress the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in enforcing a corporation’s disclosure of campaign support. Corporations are allowed to speak freely, through large campaign contributions, as legal persons. This creates the potential to greatly influence the public. Voters need to be able to clearly recognize what the company is advocating and what interests might be at issue. The dissent recognizes that corporations are different from actual people because they have no feelings, thoughts, or desires. They have one agenda, maximizing shareholder value. But, in serving their desires, are they serving the greater good of society?