Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

It is clear that campaign financial reform has become a topic of wide interest among political parties, organizations and citizens alike, especially after the landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January 2010. It is also clear that campaign reform and corporate funding is a controversial issue, as made clear by the 5-4 decision in Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court struck down the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act limiting corporations and organizations from using their general funds to produce or broadcast “electioneering communications” as a violation of the First Amendment.

Although I am unsure of the effect this decision will have on campaign finance reform and upcoming elections, I am uncertain that allowing corporations to freely fund political campaigns will positively impact the voting/election process. Corporations are highly powerful entities, mostly due to their immense wealth and influence. Their deep pockets and self-promoting agendas could result in unfair campaigning, and therefore, an unfair election process. Without limiting the influence and funding that corporations are allowed to partake in, officers running for political office could certainly have an unfair advantage over their competitors, and could essentially disrupt the election process as we know it.

As a voter, it is apparent that advertisements and broadcasts play a major role in citizens’ decisions regarding elections. This is especially true of elections for positions that will have a great impact on individual lives, such as the Presidency or State Governor. While there are people who care deeply about politics (and are therefore more likely to actually conduct their own research about individual candidates), a great percentage of the population most likely bases their votes on how candidates ‘appear,’ therefore, basing their votes on what they see and hear during the parties’ campaigns. Unlimited corporate funding would give a certain party a huge advantage, while in turn, greatly disadvantaging opponents – without necessarily representing the peoples’ best interests. More likely than note, people base their decisions and votes on advertisements seen on television or heard on the radio which highlight a candidate’s primary focuses, and changes he or she plans to implement once being elected into office. As a result, the more widespread a certain advertisement or campaign is, the more likely it is that people will be influenced by such advertisements. Hearing a certain advertisement or argument made over and over again will definitely have some effect on its audience, thus causing people to strongly consider and ‘warm up’ to certain ideas and interests, even if they had not given thought to these ideas before.

Furthermore, corporations and organizations are likely to fund certain campaigns based on their own self-interests that they would like promoted during the campaign itself, as well as after ensuring a politician’s election into office. Presumably corporations would expect a ‘favor in return’ for the amount of money that they “donated” towards campaigns, and hence expect their own interests to be secured. Once again, this poses the problem of promoting interests that do not necessarily benefit the public as a whole.

The above-mentioned concerns, among many more, have obviously been taken into account, as seen by President Obama’s concerns regarding the aftermath of the Citizens United decision. On July 26, 2010, President Obama called on the Senate to pass the DISCLOSE Act, an act aimed at reversing the Citizens United decision by requiring corporate political advertisers “to reveal who’s funding their activities.” Pres. Obama states that passing this bill would force “whoever is running and funding the ad” to “claim responsibility for it, like a company CEO or the organization’s biggest contributor.” (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/obama-calls-on-senate-to-pass-campaign-finance-reform-act-.html) In addition, I would further suggest that requiring campaigners to disclose who is contributing to the funding of their advertisements could give people a deeper insight into the type of person the candidate running for office is, and the types of organizations or corporations that they associate with.

While it is understandable that those running for a certain position or office might take all the funding that they can get in order to bolster their campaigns, requiring advertisers to identify themselves – and requiring campaigners to reveal the source of their funds – could result in the audience having a better understanding of the campaign itself, and possibly, hidden agendas or interests.

Therefore, while Citizens United upheld the First Amendment rights of corporations by enabling them to freely fund and support politicians and campaigns, it also opened the floodgates to unfair campaigning by enabling those running for office to surpass their competitors in terms of advertising and promoting themselves, thus endangering the election process as it currently stands.