Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a staggering decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court struck down parts of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the McCain−Feingold Act. In doing so, the Court has unequivocally allowed corporations, both of the for−profit and non−profit variety, to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns.
Corporations will now be allowed to broadcast "electioneering communications," which were defined in McCain−Feingold as "a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary." Previously, no such organization could have this opportunity. However, the Roberts Court found that this rule was a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This assertion has some sort of logical basis, as corporations pay taxes and can own property. However, corporations do not have the right to vote and therefore should not be granted the right to unduly influence elections.
Unlimited spending by huge corporations will give certain candidates an unfair advantage. This advantage will be easy to see and feel, as it is clear that the biggest supporters of corporate America will benefit the most. More often than not, these candidates consist mainly of conservatives, who favor lower taxes and a hands−off approach to business. Since these candidates will receive greater support from the largest corporations, this will clearly put other candidates, such as liberals and progressives, at a huge disadvantage. Granted, unions and similar organizations are part of the definition of corporations in this case, and they tend to support more liberal candidates. Although unions would also be given free reign to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns, it does not take a graduate degree to see that corporations would necessarily have more money in the bank than unions; for−profit corporations exist to make profits, after all.
This will create an insurmountable problem, and it will clearly sway elections in the direction that these corporations desire. Clearly, this will result in a weakening of democracy. The Supreme Court may have been trying to enforce and strengthen the constitutional rights our citizens are grateful for and are lucky to enjoy, but by doing so, it has denied citizens equal opportunity and therefore skewed the system away from the individual rights of our citizens. Without a level playing field from which to choose, how can our citizens continue to benefit from equality of opportunity and all the other protections the Constitution promises?
The Court has put corporate interests over the interests of the people. This was a grave mistake, but it is not the end of the road. The solution to this situation would be a new constitutional amendment covering this area. As the midterm elections approach, voters must bear in mind the specter of such a constitutional amendment, and vote accordingly. They must prevent these bodies from exerting undue influence in the political arena in order to preserve our democracy and the rights of the common citizen. There is no doubt that this decision has changed the course of our nation's history, and that it has undermined our nation's belief in and right to government that derives its power from its citizens.
Hegemony of corporations over state and national politics will have negative effects for everyone. "It's to the point where it's virtually impossible for participants in the current political system to enact any significant change without first seeking and gaining permission from the largest commercial interests who are most affected by the proposed change," Al Gore recently said. What will it matter what we think when corporations control the candidates and, for all intents and purposes, the elections?
--
Joshua Youner is a freshman whose has not yet declared a major. He can be reached at Joshua.Youner@tufts.edu.
