| A Court Supreme By: M.S. Gearheart In January, the Supreme Court reversed twenty years worth of campaign finance restrictions and granted corporations the same rights to political speech as those that are enjoyed by individual citizens. This means that a corporation's right to express itself is protected by the law just as much as an individual voter's right is protected. In 2008 a nonprofit corporation, Citizens United, produced a documentary criticizing Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The company lost their battle against the Federal Election Commission for the right to show television advertisements promoting Hillary: The Movie, and its availability On Demand. The FEC regarded the film as a form of electioneering communication--speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, a broadcast or cable communication received by fifty thousand persons in a primary election state within 30 days of a primate election. Up until that time, the law prohibited corporations from using their fund to purchase electioneering communication. Citizens United protested the FEC's restrictions and took their case all the way to the highest court in the land. In a 5-4 ruling, The Supreme Court defended the right of Citizens United to advertise their documentary, and determined that the FEC's restrictions did not hold. On behalf of the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens for engaging in political speech." But why would spending money to advertise a documentary have anything to do with the First Amendment or political speech as Justice Kennedy wrote? Precedent set by the 1976 Buckly v. Valeo Supreme Court decision determined that spending money to influence elections is, itself, a form of speech. In other words, spending money to support a political cause or political candidate is the same as publicly speaking in their favor. Attorney and professor of political science at Barnard College Paula Franzese explains, "Money talks quite literally. The money someone might spend on an advertisement means the ad is a form of expression and the ad's content is a form of expression." Corporations have deep pockets and larger amounts of wealth at their disposal than the funds available to private citizens. Franzese, an expert in First Amendment values, points out that corporate wealth and corporate organization has great potential to influence politics. She offers the following example, "A big oil corporation could back a candidate for office who favors their corporate interests. That interest may be at odds with the interest and welfare of the public. What you have then is the potential for a corrosive influence in politics." Will Holley, press secretary for Citizens United disagrees. "The fact is that all speech is good speech," he said, adding that he does not believe in distinguishing individual speech rights from corporate speech rights. To him, the marketplace of ideas should be free from government regulation of any kind and all should be able to voice their opinions. "If people want to see our documentary, great,” he said. “Rachel Maddow can come and blast it and get her side out. Bill O'Reilly can promote it and express his views. The more ideas out there, the healthier democracy will be." When asked about the potential for factual inaccuracy and untruths infecting the marketplace of ideas, Holley replied that, if truly open, information would correct itself. "I would say that ideas cannot be corrupted. Ideas are what they are. When you see ads out there that misinform, they will get pulled off the air because we have journalists, and bloggers who raise an outcry. The truth outs itself. Voters are not sheep who will just be lead whichever [way] they can be." Franzese agrees with an open marketplace of ideas, but among citizens. "The basic fact is corporations are different. They are not citizens. Their interests are not guaranteed to be the interests of citizens," she said. Regardless of political persuasion, voters deserve to be aware of what changes to the law mean. Citizens United v. FEC changes the playing field of political influence, and voters are responsible for understanding the basis of those trying to influence their opinions. As Professor Franzese emphasizes, "We are all members of a participatory democracy. We have to make our voices heard and counted. We also must be informed voters. If the basis of information comes from interest contrary to the public interest, we need to be aware of that." |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |