Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

The issue of whether the government should be able to suppress political speech from corporations has been and continues to be highly debated on both sides. After the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission this January, the topic has become an even hotter subject of debate. Citizens United v. FEC, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (U.S. 2010). Everyone has a different answer to the same questions. How could the Supreme Court open up the flood gates of corporate spending in political debates? Are corporations really included under the Bill of Rights? Is there a way to limit the effect of this decision? And yet, there is a large majority who are unsure of what to think. They are in the middle of the fight, and may or may not agree with portions of each argument. I found myself in this undecided group, still unable to wrap my head around this gigantic topic of discussion. Besides being unable to fully understand the opinon written by Justice Kennedy, there are a multitude of issues that were discussed; creating a plurality between many of the judges. The judges of the Supreme Court were as all over the place as I feel on the subject.

On one hand, what I am hearing from the news and from reading the case itself, the Supreme Court was making sure that the government would not undermine the basic right of free speech under the First Amendment for any speaker, whether it be person or corporation. I agree with this concept. Free speech is an inherent right given in the Bill of Rights, and while some speech is found to be able to be regulated, for example obscenity, political speech is a right that should not be restricted. Democracy in the United States, was founded on the basic ideal that people would have the right to participate in the political process, whether it be through voting or political propaganda. In the past, we’ve had severe limitations on who could participate in these democratic ideals, as well as when. Certain races were once unallowed to vote. People who passed out flyers were once arrested for going against the government. Those limitations were all found to be unconstitutional. The decision in Citizens United is merely an echo of the further liberal changes in our democratic society.

Some people may be arguing whether a corporation is or is not included under the Bill of Rights. However, in the case of Citizens United, I do not feel that was the issue. It was just a byproduct of the decision in this case. In Citizens United, the company was merely releasing out a film that just happened to have a political motive. However, unlike the political campaign ads on television or signs in the street, the movie was only visible to someone who purchased on cable television through video-on-demand. Whether a film or documentary is of a particular political motive should never be time restrictioned on a legal basis. It may be distasteful and inappropriate, but it should not be legally barred. That is one reason why I do not see fault with the decision in Citizens United. Anyone, including studios and corporations, should be able to release a movie whenever they want. People will either watch it or they will not. Their support or non-support of a candidate should not matter whether it is prior to an election, during, or even years later. It would have been different if it was a film that violated the senses of decency and was obscene, but it was not.

On the other hand, because there are so many issues of corporate spending looming as a result of the case, I personally believe the decision in Citizens United does give an opening for corporations to spend even more of their money on political propaganda. Companies are already taking a huge amount of money from their funds to fund these campaigns, from the thousands of dollars to multi-millions. I do not feel this is necessary at all. The ads on television may not be helpful for a candidate, but it costs millions just to air them during prime time. I feel that the only benefit of spending such huge amounts of money on an election candidate is to “buy them out” for support later during the candidate’s term. Such use of funds is a waste.

Additionally, the money going to the funding of a candidate could be going to issues I feel are much more important. It could be going to supporting the economy, allowing the company to hire more employees, to charitable donations of a good cause, and/or even to our state governments. Companies spend so much time finding ways to save money by creating tax shelters, or incorporating themselves in certain locations, only to use a large portion, if not all, of their spare funds on political donations. By allowing corporations to support candidates through these new methods mentioned in Citizens United, it may have just worsened the issue. Corporations should be prevented on spending a percentage of its money on elections on policy grounds, especially with the large variety of other things to spend it on. This is not to say that corporate spending is not itself a huge issue that does not seem like it will be resolved any time soon.

Overall, I suppose I have come to a half-hearted decision, where I can understand the legal view of the Supreme Court, but I do not like what this may mean for the future of corporate spending. Hopefully, after listening to the various panels at the Symposium at Chapman University School of Law tomorrow, I can get a better understanding of the depth of this issue, as well as open my mind to the pros and cons of both sides. In the future, who knows the affect this Symposium will have to affect Citizens United, whether it be through another Supreme Court case, legislation, or even a change in societal perspective.