Debate (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission)
Democracy Incorporated
By Teddy Wilson
“I hope we shall… crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
-Thomas Jefferson
The Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission over turned a century judicial precedent and strengthened special interests grip on American politics. This decision has a profound effect on our democracy, and will in effect limit individuals’ impact on their democracy by strengthening corporations’ impact. The 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court was characterized by some as a victory for free speech, but the ruling is only a victory for corporate interest and a defeat for democracy.
The decision handed down by the court found that corporate financing of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The decision chips away at the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold Act, by overturning a ban on for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications” in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.
The decision ignored precedent and overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. While it is often asserted by critics that liberal judges too often legislate from the bench, this is an obvious case of conservative judicial activism. In the dissent Justice Steven wrote that the majority ruled on a question not brought before the court and “changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”
By removing limits on independent corporate expenditures during elections the Supreme Court fundamentally limited the impact that individual citizens can have on their democracy. As aggregators of capital corporations have a distinct advantage over individual citizens to essentially buy influence. In 2008 Exxon Mobile posted profits of $85 billion. If Exxon spend only 10% of their profits on political campaigns that would be three times the amount that both presidential candidates and every congressional candidate spent during that same year.
Essentially what we have created is what political philosopher Sheldon Wolin referred to as inverted totalitarianism. This participatory fascism is promoted by corporate interest as supporting democracy all the while manipulating the levers of power as to make democracy impossible. All the while the fourth estate has deteriorated and our corporate owned media spends less time informing and more time distracting. Perhaps one of the most important elements of a democracy is the free flow of information. However, when this information is manipulated and distorted by corporate interest, and the public is distracted by cultural disputes it negative affects our democracy.
At the center of this decision is the idea that corporations have the same rights and liberties as individuals. Somehow entities that only exist through the creation of law have the same rights and liberties as individual citizens. Supreme Court Chief Justice Douglass White said that because corporations are an instrumentality that the state charters in order to achieve economic purposes, the state does not have to permit its own creature to consume it, to devour it. While corporations cannot vote they can make yours irrelevant. Money is not speech. Human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.