Viewpoints on Citizens United
A cheapened democracy
Late last month, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled against democracy. It ruled in favor of a corporate domination of politics, backroom deals and the neglect of average, hardworking Americans. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that corporations may fund advertisements in support or in attack of political candidates. Asserting that the First Amendment entitled corporations to the right to unlimited political expenditure, the ruling created an inherently ruinous system. It is clear that the Court's decision was the wrong one, both constitutionally and democratically.
On the issue of constitutionality, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the Opinion of the Court, argued that having restrictions on corporate spending would chill free speech. Similarly, he noted that a corporation was simply a group of individuals and that individuals should not have their right speech inhibited just because they organized as a group. These arguments are woefully misguided. It is acceptable to limit free speech insofar as there is a "compelling state interest" justifying the limitation.
Demonstrating compelling state interest in this situation necessitates an analysis of the democratic implications of corporate spending on politics. To begin, the premise of the Court's ruling is false because it seems to claim that corporate spending will have no effect on politicians and the interests they represent.
This is a preposterous argument. Politicians will make decisions based on their financial supporters rather than the general interest of their constituents.
The January ruling is harmful to constituents because of the relationship politicians will have with corporations. One must note that politicians will begin to engage in backroom deals, wherein they make promises on certain issues, out of the public eye, in exchange for a political advertisement funded by a corporation. In effect, more and more politicians will begin to have secret corporate agendas, not up for scrutiny by the public at large. This is also, by definition, corruption: politicians are acting in a certain way in exchange for money and favors in the form of campaign advertisements.
On the issue of constitutionality, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the Opinion of the Court, argued that having restrictions on corporate spending would chill free speech. Similarly, he noted that a corporation was simply a group of individuals and that individuals should not have their right speech inhibited just because they organized as a group. These arguments are woefully misguided. It is acceptable to limit free speech insofar as there is a "compelling state interest" justifying the limitation.
Demonstrating compelling state interest in this situation necessitates an analysis of the democratic implications of corporate spending on politics. To begin, the premise of the Court's ruling is false because it seems to claim that corporate spending will have no effect on politicians and the interests they represent.
This is a preposterous argument. Politicians will make decisions based on their financial supporters rather than the general interest of their constituents.
The January ruling is harmful to constituents because of the relationship politicians will have with corporations. One must note that politicians will begin to engage in backroom deals, wherein they make promises on certain issues, out of the public eye, in exchange for a political advertisement funded by a corporation. In effect, more and more politicians will begin to have secret corporate agendas, not up for scrutiny by the public at large. This is also, by definition, corruption: politicians are acting in a certain way in exchange for money and favors in the form of campaign advertisements.
Be the first to comment on this story