Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

Politics and politicians form the foundation of more arguments, debates, lies, and corruption than any other issue. As a representative of the average voter, I readily admit that I distrust politicians. Ironically, and somewhat ashamedly, I usually learn the most about a political candidate through the propaganda I see on television, whether through political commercials or the rants of newscasters on FOX and MSNBC. It is rare to engage in the debate of a “hot” issue and understand the merits underlying each point of view. While I comprehend the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, I cannot seem to reconcile myself to its potential implications.

In a much-debated 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court recently overruled two precedents upholding the Bipartisan Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold), which banned the broadcast, cable, or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions for their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 130 S.Ct. 876, 896-914 (2010). The Citizens United dispute stemmed from a 90-minute political documentary produced by Citizens United entitled “Hillary: The Movie.” The film was shown in theaters in six cities during the 2008 Democratic primaries and is available on DVD and the Internet. Adam Liptak, Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limits, N.Y. Times, January 21, 2010, at A1.

The Court could have resolved the dispute in a number of ways. For example, it could have ruled that “Citizens United was not the sort of group to which the McCain-Feingold law was meant to apply, or that the law did not mean to address 90-minute documentaries, or that video-on-demand technologies were not regulated by the law.” Adam Liptak, Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limits, N.Y. Times, January 21, 2010, at A1. However, the Court held that the case could not be decided on a narrow ground without “chilling political speech…that is central to the First Amendment’s meaning and purpose.” Citizens United, 130 S.Ct at 892-896. Instead, the Court chose to evaluate the facial validity of McCain-Feingold in accordance with the constitutionally protected right to free speech. The Court concluded the law violates a corporation’s First Amendment rights. Id.

This is where the internal struggle begins for the average voter. Because the Supreme Court has held that a corporation falls under the protection of the First Amendment, it is only logical to conclude that restricting a corporation’s political media spending violates the corporation’s First Amendment rights. Most voters, however, find this argument hard to swallow because of the decision’s possibly damaging implications.

Following the letter of the Constitution in this case will allow wealthy, influential corporations to essentially “buy” a candidate, thereby enabling the corporation to manipulate the outcome of the election in accordance with their specific goals. Is this what our founding fathers would have wanted? Or does this decision stretch beyond the true intention of the right to free speech? Citizens United will turn elections into a quest for the almighty dollar, pushing our nation further away from the democracy our forefathers envisioned. If a candidate does not side with a corporation’s political agenda, he/she could receive significantly less funding than another candidate, leading to less television and radio time. This places certain candidates at a huge disadvantage on Election Day. The candidate with the most money will be the most exposed and will, therefore, garner more votes. Excellent candidates, who for one reason or another must campaign on a smaller budget, unnecessarily lose out to the “big money” candidates (because the truth of the matter is, like myself, most Americans vote based on what they see in political advertisements and films). To that end, America loses out as well since many strong political candidates are never given an opportunity to be noticed by voters.

Moreover, this decision could possibly deter political candidates from following their own agenda or fighting for the causes they deem most important during their election campaign. Instead, many candidates may be tempted to tailor their campaigns to please the corporations with deep pockets, simply in the hope of receiving enough money to help them get elected.

So, how do we solve this conundrum – how do we follow the Constitution of the United States while protecting voters from political races drenched in money, greed, and power? I do not think we can. I suppose all we can do is hope that voters will take the time to research a candidate before making a decision and pray that some excellent candidates find other ways to represent themselves during their campaigns.