Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

I'm a law student, so I should have known about, heard of, and been paying attention to the Citizens United case and its aftermath well before I was assigned to blog about it. But, I'm a law student, so I won't lie to you: I had no clue what the case was about. Now, in my defense, I was a law student in my first year of law school, and anything not on my to-do list received absolutely no attention. In fact, personal hygiene had little hope of accomplishment, but that's beside the point.

Upon investigation, I learned that the case concerned whether a conservative non-profit group, Citizens United, could pay for ads that promoted a movie, which was critical of Hillary Clinton. Under the McCain-Feingold Act, such an ad would be prohibited, and the Federal Election Commission sought to enforce it. In the end, the Court held that it would violate the right to free speech, guaranteed under the First Amendment, if the McCain-Feingold Act was allowed to continue to prohibit corporate funding of political broadcasts.

Of course, the big up roar was over the right to free speech and corporate funding of political ads. now, the lawyer gods may strike me down for this one, but who cares about corporate funding of political ads? Who cares about political ads? Am I the only one who gets so turned off by the mudslinging that goes back and forth between candidates leading up to elections that I simply don't pay attention? In fact, I make a conscious decision not to watch television in the fall during an election year just so I can avoid all the insanity.

I do realize, however, that some people pay attention to the ads. There is the argument that corporate giants with unlimited funds could flood the airways with ads promoting their candidate of choice, thereby choking out the voice of the little guy. But I'm not big (figuratively and literally, thank you) and somehow you are reading this. The new media has changed the way information is exchanged and promulgated. Those who can't afford airspace can create blogs, start a website, post on Facebook, etc. I'd argue that advertisements in that arena are more narrowly tailored to a specific audience, thereby having a greater chance of getting one's political message really heard. I'm much more apt to read a friend's blog post than I am to pay attention to the random television voice telling me how much "Corporate Giant X" thinks "Candidate Y" could destroy our nation and ravage the economy.

On the other hand, I'm a 25 year-old kid, and the "new media" is not altogether new to me. It is, in fact, the norm, but for those my parent's age and older, television, newspaper, and radio are where they get their information. It does worry me a bit that now during every Glenn Beck commercial break powerful interest groups will have free access to corporate funding to promote their candidates and agendas. However, the ruling entitles all corporations to fund ads as political free speech, so one can bet that the left will find funding for its own propaganda just as readily.

This leads me to wonder whether the decision really changed anything. After all, the Court upheld the provision that advertisements must disclose their sponsors, and it didn't change the fact that corporations can't give money directly to candidates. in effect, instead of being bombarded by five or six caustic ads about the inadequacies of Candidate X, I'll be bombarded by fifteen or sixteen because now his opponent, Candidate Y, has a larger resource pool and can fund more oh-so-informative ads. There's still the segment at the end where the announcer speeds through the fact that what you just heard all about crazy incumbent Candidate X was paid for by someone trying to get his job. And there's still the overwhelming desire to shove your fingers in your ears or change the channel.

Well, I know how I initially reacted to the case, but what did the Big Wigs have to say about it, I wondered. Turns out, quite a bit. Everyone who is everyone wrote, blogged, and commented on the decision, but it was the reaction of the Big Wig himself, President Obama, that struck me most. He spoke out vehemently against the Court's decision in Citizens United and lambasted the Court for going against years of precedent by allowing corporations and foreign entities to fund United States politics.

Hmmm. I'm confused. Does that mean that corporations and foreign entities weren't involved in U.S. politics before? President Obama, you had me at hello, but now, I'm not so sure I am with you on this one. How about the fact that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is one of the most powerful lobby groups on Capitol Hill? Don't tell me those guys don't have money or foreign interests in mind. Or, for a more local example, look at Meg Whitman, who is running for Governor in California. She took Ebay from a small, yet profitable corporation to being a juggernaut worth billions of dollars and is now spending more of her own money on her own campaign then anyone else ever has. I'm thinking a healthy chunk of her finances stem from Ebay and stream straight into her campaign. So whether it's directly or through various channels, corporate money finds its way into politics.

In the end, while I know my liberal bleeding heart should hang heavy at this win for corporate giants, it doesn't. Perhaps I'm already jaded, resigned to the fact that business is money is power is politics. Perhaps I'm hopeful, believing that there are people out there who also ignore the biased campaign ads and research the issues for themselves. Perhaps I'm a bit of both. Either way, Citizens United, examined strictly on the basis of what it regulated, did not stir me to anger or action. However, once I looked into how the Court actually decided the case, I understood why it caused the stir it did! Did the Court power grab to establish precedent? Hmm. To be continued...