As I begin writing this article, it takes me back to a few weeks ago when I read an article about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In the recent article he talks about how past cases are not legal gospel, meaning that past cases, in his opinion, are not grounds to rule on current cases being heard. With this thought in mind, I began to ponder and research cases that I have seen in my lifetime, and my thoughts diverged on one case: Citizen’s United vs. FEC(2010). As a result of this case, it has established legal precedent that no person, group, corporation, union or entity there within, has the ability to spend limitless funds to sway an election. In my opinion, no other case has shaped geo-political arenas such that this case has done. Under these circumstances, I believe the Supreme Court must overturn such measures and protect our democratic republic from falling to deaf ears from the ambitious and excessive political contributions from the self-interest of the few.
Upon first glance, it seems as though such measures by the Supreme Court might appear fictitious and untrue, but in 2010 the world of American politics changed forever. Before we dive into such matters that culminated from the case, we must analyze the case from start to finish. For background knowledge, Citizens United is a non-profit corporation who made a film called “Hillary: The Movie,” in 2008, criticizing then Senator Hillary Clinton during the Presidential Primaries. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, corporations and unions could not use their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications” within 30 days of the primary and 60 days of a general election. The FEC classified the film as an electioneering communication and barred Citizens United from promoting nor distributing it through video-on-demand. Subsequently, Citizens United sued the FEC, stating the law passed by Congress limits such expenditures and violates the First Amendment free speech clause. As a result, a legal question arose, Does the government’s prohibition on corporate spending for independent political broadcasts during elections violate the First Amendment right to free speech?
In the majority decision(5-4), the court held that yes, the federal government law violates the First Amendment. The ruling struck down the BCRA’s ban on corporate and union funding of independent political spending. The key reasoning done by Justice Kennedy states, “Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” In another quote he states, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in Free Speech." The court ruled that the government cannot suppress speech based on the speaker’s identity whether it be a corporation, union, or individual.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens warned, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought or sold. Corporations are not actually members of the society…..They cannot vote or run for office…..and their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.” The dissent argued that the decision gave disproportionate political power to corporations and wealthy interests, undermining the integrity of elections and public trust.
This key Supreme Court case set legal precedence towards unlimited campaign contributions as long as they did not go directly towards the candidate themselves because money spent is effectively seen as free speech. It fundamentally changed how the country's political elections and system functions entirely. Citizens United vs. FEC directly led to the creation of Super PAC’s , which can spend and raise unlimited sums of money to advocate for or against any candidate as long as they don’t coordinate with campaigns.
From the individual perspective, many moral and ethical violations come to mind. This allows multi-national corporations, composed of individuals and entities both domestic and abroad to directly influence general elections. To allow such means to take place, undermines the election and political process. It also creates blurred lines between politicians and the corporate and private entities that support them. Regardless of the legal jargon that is spouted, political coordination takes place between private and public entities and individual candidates in terms of ideology, planning, and fund raising. It creates a widening gap between the representation of the masses and those of the financial elite due to the legal precedent set forth at the culmination of this Supreme Court Case. In addition, it has created a society in which money has transformed our political system. For example, in a Pennsylvania Congressional race, 550 million dollars was raised by both sides to fund their respective campaigns. This disproportionate amount of wealth spent on one seat in Congress speaks volumes for how far corporate interests will go to win just one seat on Capital Hill.
The ability for such a case to have such overreaching effects on the political system speaks volumes for the “give an inch, take a mile” perspective. To give corporations such unchecked power in the political process is simply a disservice to the rightful citizens of the United States. Free speech belongs to the individual, and to create such means that the individual is simply no more than a whisper in a room deafened by corporate finance is both morally and legally inapprehensible. To turn a free speech case into unchecked power by multi-national corporations has led to the moral collapse of the nation and its political system. As a result, we must do a service and due diligence to the people of this very nation and strike down corporate, union, and Super PAC unlimited spending in the election process.
No comments:
Post a Comment