Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

Money talks, there’s no doubt about it. And, according to the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, apparently so do corporations. Citizens United v. FEC, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (U.S. 2010). Neither are persons, neither have a body or soul, but both now have the power of persuasion. According to Citizens United, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. Money from a corporation to go toward politics may come from the general treasury fund of the corporation, without the consent, or even knowledge, of its shareholders. In essence under this decision, a corporation is protected by the First Amendment.

Last week, I had the unique opportunity to attend Chapman University’s NeXus Journal of Law and Policy’s symposium. The entire symposium revolved around campaign finance, and the event was titled “Citizens Divided on Citizens United: Campaign Finance Reform and the First Amendment.” It was not only an interesting opportunity to hear legal discussions about the recent Supreme Court decision, but a timely symposium as well with the upcoming elections. The event was both stimulating and thought-provoking, and definitely opened my eyes to the legal debates over campaign finance.

In addition to the timely event with interesting panelists, the symposium offered me an opportunity to inundate myself for the entire day into the legal topic. There, I learned many differing perspectives from many scholars which helped me expand my knowledge on the subject.

Before the symposium, I was anxious to hear the differing opinions of the panel members, and hoped it would allow me to see both sides of the coin and form my own opinions as to the recent Supreme Court decision. I have never been extraordinarily interested in campaign finance, and I was fearful that the panelists would use legal and corporate jargon that I would not understand, and thus make my experience less interesting. However, the panelists did an excellent job of teaching the subject in a way that I could understand. Each panelist gave the necessary background, and provided their opinions on the matter. And as a law student who was not extraordinarily interested in the topic initially, I found myself really enjoying the event.

I found listening to all of the panelists interesting, and I found myself intrigued and perplexed mainly with the idea that one of the panelists proposed. It was the idea that when reading Citizens United with a “constitutional law eye,” it did not make much sense. It seemed that the case was circumventing the first Amendment and giving corporations the right of free speech, similar to persons. But on the other hand, when reading it with a “corporate law eye,” the decision flowed. This sparked my interest and I am excited to go back and reread the case, paying closer attention to the two distinct areas of law.

One other issue of much concern that I learned about is the idea that the money used by a corporation to fund politics will not always make everyone happy with the way the money is spent. Since the money used to fund politics is coming from the general treasury fund of a corporation, the shareholders do not get to choose what happens to the money and where it goes. This became a problem for Target shareholders when word got out about their “support” of an anti-gay campaign. Target contributed $150,000 to a “well known anti-gay politician in Minnesota.” Because of this campaign contribution, Target employees, as well as other groups who oppose anti-gay efforts are concerned about what the store is standing for. This situation poses a unique problem for Target employees and shareholders. They did not have any say in where the money is going or what it is used for. And, in the case of Target, it went to a politician who opposed gay marriage, thus creating a “stir” in the media over Target’s decisions.

While I personally do not agree with corporations “taking a stand” and contributing their money toward politics, I do not think it is a decision for anyone other than the corporation itself to make. If a corporation wishes to contribute to politicians, or politics in general, it should. And even though the stockholders may not agree with what and where the corporations’ money is going, ultimately it is a business decision for the corporation to make. Shareholders have the option of where to put their money, and what makes corporations so unique is the fact that each has their own business model, their own plan for where the money should go.

The symposium ended on a high note with Professor Canova. I found his proposal interesting, whereby he proposed to add the caveat, if you will, that corporations are not persons under for first amendment purposes. While only a few small words, I wonder what ramifications it would pose to our constitution and to campaign finance looking forward.

Either way, it is a hot topic as we approach the elections, and one in which I hope is interesting to everyone, even those who did not anticipate this topic being of interest.

While I am by no means an expert in campaign finance law, I believe the decision may cause corporations, or those operating the corporation, to think twice about what, if any, politics they will support.

Overall, it is clear the Supreme Court has spoken. Everyone seems to have their own opinions, their own “new and different” take on the situation. For myself and I presume many others who attended the symposium, I gained a greater insight into this hot legal topic and am forming my own opinions (just in time for the elections, too)! I am anxious to see what the voters have to say about the changes in our nation. Only time will tell!

Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/target-homophobia-ceo-gre_n_660990.html Citizens United v. FEC, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (U.S. 2010)