The Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which holds that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts during elections cannot be limited, has generated a significant amount of controversy in political and media circles. Supporters consider the decision a victory for free speech, and the opposition, largely consisting of Democrats, considers it a misapplication of the First Amendment that will have disastrous consequences.
Both sides have reasonable cases. Corporations have long been recognized by the U.S. government as legal persons; they pay taxes and are allowed to own property, enter contracts and sue and be sued. United States Code Title 1, Chapter 1 explicitly states that "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress … the words ‘person' and ‘whoever' include corporations … as well as individuals." Given that spending on communication (i.e. advertisements) is legally considered a form of speech by the government, the First Amendment appears to protect corporate spending as much as individual speech.
The setback that the ruling signifies for campaign finance reform, however, may end up limiting the ability of less wealthy candidates to make their points. Now that campaign finance safeguards are so much weaker, corporations can flood television and radio with advertisements promoting candidates of their choice, actually limiting free speech by drowning out politicians who aren't able to attract extremely wealthy supporters.
One bill that has emerged from the controversy appears particularly capable of addressing the problems Citizens United would create. Proposed by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md), the bill would limit the amount of money that companies that received government bailouts from the Troubled Asset Relief Program can spend on political advertisements, ban foreign companies from any spending on advertisements, attach disclaimers to the ads (the CEO of the company would have to visibly approve the ad like political candidates currently do, and the top five donors to the company's political wing must also appear in the ad) and impose new disclosure requirements on the company's political donations. The Schumer-Van Hollen proposal will be submitted to Congress after the Presidents Day recess.
The bill is not perfect. Exactly what constitutes a "foreign" company is debatable, and non-bailout companies may gain an edge on their competitors that did receive bailouts. However, given the degree of the potential harms, some measure of precaution should be adopted, and the Schumer-Van Hollen Bill can provide that. Political campaigns are already influenced by the wealth of the candidate, but the Supreme Court's decision could eliminate the possibility of grassroots campaigns and underdog candidates almost completely by making money the central factor in choosing to run for office.
