Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

The Nexus Journal of Law and Policy held it’s annual Symposium entitled “Citizens Divided on Citizens United: Campaign Finance Reform and the 1st Amendment” on October 22, 2010. The event turned out to be a huge success due to a highly intelligent, captivating panel of speakers. The speakers all had a wide array of opinions on the controversial Citizens United case. After doing an extensive amount of research on the case myself and forming my own opinions on the topic, it was interesting hearing others take on the different outcomes the case might have on the United States political process. Issues that I had not thought of myself were brought to light, and opened my eyes to a multitude of various dilemmas that must be taken into consideration when dealing with this magnitude of a case.

One of the interesting points one of the panelists made was in relation to a corporation having the same rights as citizens. He believed since a corporation is considered an artificial entity it should not have privileges that are granted to individuals. I felt that it was a good point, however, I completely disagreed with it. In my opinion, since citizens run corporations, the corporations should be granted the same rights. It’s almost as if a corporation is the “middle man” between an individual and their beliefs and opinions. The corporation is just a vehicle to get a viewpoint heard. If a company is going to make decisions based around a political candidate and their stance on issues, why should it not be able to take a side and provide financing to ensure that candidate comes out on top?

Unlike many others, I do not see a huge problem with allowing a corporation to support a political candidate or party. When a corporation is taking a side it is putting itself out to the public as an association and supporter of that political candidate’s or party’s beliefs. A corporation is taking the risk of giving itself a bad image if the political candidate stands for something that it’s consumers or shareholders might not all agree with. The corporation’s political stance is a mere reflection of what the individual’s who run the company’s beliefs are. I believe by allowing corporations to express themselves, it will actually have a positive effect on the political process. It allows consumers to have a choice whether or not to support a corporation based on the company’s decision to partake in politics or not and what the company’s political stance may be. If a consumer does not agree with the corporation’s political beliefs, then they do not have to support the corporation. Making it very clear where a corporation stands in the political realm works out best for everyone.

However, the only way my opinion can stand any ground brings us to another controversial topic discussed heavily at the Symposium. That being disclosure. A corporation can only be associated with a political candidate if the money they spend on campaigns and advertisements is entirely disclosed to the public. I believe disclosure is a very important issue in the political process. One of the speakers on the panel at the Symposium, Ms. Ciara Torres – Spelliscy, was an advocate for disclosure of political campaign expenditures. Her argument was supported by the U.K.’s system of disclosure in political campaigns. In the U.K. political candidates must disclose where all their campaign funding was derived from. A law on disclosure in the United States is currently being attempted to be passed, however, it is unlikely it will go through. Corporations are not backing the disclosure law, and as we all know their interests rank high in the political decision making process, therefore, it will be hard to convince Congress to vote for this law in particular.

I believe a disclosure law would allow opponents and proponents for the Citizens United case to reach somewhat of a middle ground. Both sides could then be relatively happy with the case’s outcome. It would still allow for corporate spending on political campaigns, but would also inform voters on what a particular corporations stance is and allow those citizens to make their own decision on if they support that corporation or not based on the corporation’s political beliefs. Voters would always be informed about where exactly their money is going. In addition, it would compensate for the fear that one panelist stressed, that shareholders in companies were having their money spent on causes that they did not support, and the shareholders were oblivious that this was even occurring. If it is made a known fact exactly where the money is going then shareholders would not have to worry, because they would simply not buy stock in a company that would provide financing to support that particular political campaign.

Disclosure would also force corporations to be more honest and smart about their spending. Instead of throwing large amounts of money into any political candidate that would make promises, which would benefit the corporation in the long run, the individual’s who run the corporation would have to account for the way their spending may be perceived by consumers and shareholders. By backing a candidate that may not be popular with the shoppers at the their company, the disclosure requirement would cause the corporation to lose a significant amount of business. When it comes down to it, I feel it would make corporations be more responsible and accountable for their actions. Forcing all spending to be made public would make the political process more honest and less corrupt.

In my opinion, corporations are going to provide financing for campaigns one way or another. Would we rather it be done illegally which leads to more corruption, or make it legal and have it be made known to everyone? I feel like the later is a much better option for our country and political process as a whole. These were just a few issues that were touched on at the “Citizens Divided for Citizens United: Campaign Finance Reform and the 1st Amendment” Symposium. I found theses areas particularly interesting, however, all the panelists made very convincing points on the Citizens United case. Overall, the Symposium was a huge success, and it was great experiences being able to hear such an impressive, intelligent group of panelists speak on the topic.