In a landmark case last month, the Supreme Court ruled against the Federal Election Commission in favor of Citizens United, a conservative-leaning nonprofit organization. This ruling overturned a majority of legislation aimed at campaign reform.
The Court’s majority declared that a corporation, like any American, has the right to campaign for political candidates. This means that corporations would have a First Amendment right to unlimited spending on political campaigns.
The Court disregarded stare decisis in overruling their precedent in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which stated that political speech could be banned based on a speaker’s corporate identity. President Barack Obama called the ruling “a [strike] at our democracy itself.”
The 5-4 ruling was passed on the shoulders of five conservative leaning justices, pushing a decision that overwhelmingly favors Republican candidates.
In a move worthy of study in a high school government class, Democrats on Capitol Hill are drafting legislation that will limit the scope of this ruling. Isn’t it great when we see our government in action?
As the ruling will clearly favor Republican candidates in the midterm elections, Democrats are moving quickly to pass this bill in order to block corporations from taking advantage of this underhanded ruling.
The bill, which will likely be difficult to pass, raises some key issues. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who called the ruling “one of the most wrongheaded decisions in court history”, drew attention to the effect foreign-owned corporations might have. The senator cited Venezuelan-owned Citgo and a plethora of Chinese-owned corporations.
Do we really want foreign entities influencing our elections? There is no way the Court considered this consequence before their ruling.
If corporations are really analogous to the American public and some corporations are foreign-owned, why not grant voting privileges to international citizens? Our country has an effect on their respective countries. Shouldn’t they have free speech?
The bill being pushed by Congress would prevent such companies from spending on political campaigns. It would also force domestic-owned corporations to identify themselves in campaign ads.
When a person spends on a political campaign, his or her interests are clear. He or she is known. Unlike this, contributions from corporations will not have a clear interest. Anyone, from an enemy of the state to grandma Ruth, could be behind such contributions.
Freedom of speech is not protection for the cowardly but rather it is empowerment for the brave. If one has something to say let them say it.
While the Democrats are obviously acting in their own favor, their actions support fairness. The Supreme Court is overstepping its boundary of power. Congress should check the Court.
If we were to assume the Court’s decision was not aimed at supporting Republican candidates come election time, then it would be safe that say that erred with philosophical misunderstanding.
Giving the likes of John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy the benefit of this doubt, it would be argued that corporations are not analogous to human beings. But, as stated in the Feb. 1 editorial regarding this topic, questions like this, while often times tackled by the courts, should not be taken into account without understanding the consequence.
The bill, which is not favored by all Democrats and not opposed by all Republicans, will have difficulty in Congress. Even if it does pass it will likely only stand for the 2010 Midterm elections. The Supreme Court is expected to overturn the legislation as soon as possible.
The court may have acted underhandedly in this decision. They may have erred on the side of philosophy. They may have been sincerely protecting freedom of speech. However, what they did not do is consider the consequences of their actions and government should never act without considering consequence.