The SCOTUS recently ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the campaign finance limits placed on corporations (and other civil organization like unions) are in violation of the first amendment and therefore are unconstitutional.
This created an uproar across the country. Newspaper op-ed's slammed the SCOTUS for opening the floodgates for corporate greed to take over the election process. Especially ironic is this Washington Post op-ed by a liberal decrying judicial activism in the SCOTUS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101838.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). President Obama publicly and harshly rebuked the SCOTUS in his SOTU speech. Even Alito's response to Obama, nothing more than a slight shaking of his head and mouthing the words "not true", created great controversy across the country. But the reaction wasn't uniformly partisan. Even many conservatives were worried that the money could wreck the election process.
There are three main questions of concern here. First, do corporations (both for-profit and otherwise), unions, as well as other civil associations enjoy natural rights like an individual? Second, does money == freedom of speech? Third, will allowing civil associations freedom to spend money on political campaigns corrupt the election process? All three are relevant questions that deserve consideration.
Let's tackle the first question, do corporations enjoy natural rights like an individual. In order to answer this question, we have to think about what a corporation is. While corporations have traditionally been painted in popular culture as faceless, soulless, Machiavellian machines, they are far from it. A corporation is just a voluntary association amongst shareholders. And because the set of shareholders/owners tend to change over time, the act of incorporation places a layer of abstraction between the shareholders and the rest of society. And the management team at the corporation is the agent that represents the principals with the goal of maximizing ROI. When the corporation makes a political statement, it is implicitly a political statement from the set of shareholders via their agent. Now, of course, any given political statement from any given corporation is not going to square with the political views of all of its shareholders. But that is a corporate governance issue, and not a freedom of speech issue. Restrictions on corporations doesn't just restrict some faceless soulless entity, it restricts the rights of the shareholders of the corporation.
Secondly, is money equivalent to free speech? This is a much easier question. How would one exercise one's freedom to speak without money to purchase air time? or a microphone? How do you tweet your thoughts without money to pay for a computer and internet access? You can utter words in the privacy of your own home I suppose, but even that assumes money to pay for a home! So the question isn't how is spending money equivalent to free speech, it's how is spending money NOT equivalent to free speech!
The third and most practical question is whether having this freedom would ruin the democratic election process. The fear obviously is that mega-corporations will be forever lobbying Congress for subsidies and favorable policies. And I agree that's a very valid concern. But that is a sign that the government (democratic or not), has too much power. Why would private individuals trade so much of their time and effort for sometimes nothing more than an audience with some of the most disingenuous and unprincipled people in society? The real solution isn't to stem the flow of money, it's to remove the demand for political power. Just as there was separation of church and state, there should now be separation of economy and state.
In addition, just as a given political political statement will never square with all shareholder, it will also never square with all customers, present and future. Thus companies, unless grievously threatened, will probably shy away from an overtly political lean. Afterall, both democrats and republicans drink coca-cola.
I applaud the SCOTUS for this momentous decision. A violation to the freedom of speech (and perhaps even more importantly, political speech) was remedied. We must remember that this doesn't somehow grant human status to a corporation. Instead it recognizes the human individuals behind the corporations. And while I believe that the actual effect will be very moderate, it still makes me feel good that the principles laid out in the Constitution still means something in this country. Bravo SCOTUS.
No comments:
Post a Comment