By Daniel Sholler, University of Pennsylvania
The Supreme Court has redefined the power of the dollar.
In a recent ruling in the case Citizens United v. Federal Elections Committee, the Court removed limits to campaign contributions and granted rights that blur the line between individual and corporation. In essence, the influence of corporations in determining elections and political decisions vastly increased.
While Political Action Committees (PACs) and limits to individual campaign contributions still exist despite the ruling, corporations can now take a larger role in advertising and funding campaign efforts. This is perhaps more dangerous than allowing unlimited direct contributions. Allowing companies to devote vast resources to campaigns of their own for politicians and issues pushes the United States democratic system down a slippery slope. With corporation-controlled media outlets and the already tight grip corporations have on consumers, these businesses will have a powerful hand in determining outcomes.
The decision was made based on the Constitution’s protection of free speech and other free will rights. This speaks to the direction the nation has headed in recent years regarding the perception of corporate America. The idea that corporations are an agglomeration of individuals and therefore should be subject to appropriate regulation has all but vanished from the purview of the Supreme Court. Decision makers have placed companies in the realm of ordinary citizens and, in many cases, have fought longer and harder for big business than for individual rights. The ruling is a bold and dangerous statement that business, and therefore money, is a major player in the game of politics. Lawmakers now have further incentive to tailor policies to these corporations rather than to their grassroots contingencies.
The other side of the argument holds that corporations should utilize their money as they see fit. Invoking “freedom of speech,” these companies argued that political advertising via media outlets is a form of corporate spending on campaigns. This argument was adopted by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that the previous regulations on campaign spending “would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are.”
While Roberts is correct in his assertion that major corporations have a role in what the media produces, the Citizens United ruling takes this idea to a new level. Corporate influence will no longer be limited to what an individual corporation’s media outlet can air. The already dangerous problem of networks like Fox News intertwining news with opinion (and, to many average viewers, indistinguishably so) gains validity and, essentially, the support of the government. In addition, he ignores the fact that public debate in newspapers and on television is not identical to campaign support.
Politically, it is not difficult to read between the lines. An outwardly liberal president resides over the executive branch, the legislative branch is divided in a tug-of-war between Congressional members, and the Supreme Court has decided to take a position on the opposite pole. The Citizens United ruling is a loud and clear statement that conservatives refuse to relinquish governmental power. In doing so, Roberts has ignored judicial precedent by overturning two previous cases and engaging in judicial activism.
