Supreme Court ruling troubling for democracy

Last week saw a dark milestone in the history of the United States. On Jan. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, announced in effect that corporations are more legally entitled to influence our government than “We the People” do. The Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down most of the campaign finance laws that limit the amount of money a corporation may spend in an election campaign.
Those restrictions remain in place for individuals—the Supreme Court has essentially given businesses a blank check to dominate American politics.
This case, which overturns previous rulings by the Court in favor of limiting corporate spending in elections, originated in 2008 when right-wing nonprofit organization Citizens United distributed a documentary that attacked then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Hillary: The Movie was, according to the New York Times, “a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism.”
The Federal Election Commission promptly sued the group, as the film failed to disclose who had paid for it. Citizens United stopped distributing the film, but appealed the lawsuit to federal courts. Eventually, it reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has recently articulated a doctrine called “corporate free speech.” It states that the First Amendment’s free speech clause is not only for individuals—in that it allows us the right to publically criticize the government—and it extends the concept of free speech to corporations, on the grounds that a corporation is defined as a person under the law.
This doctrine goes back to the late 19th century, when the Supreme Court essentially redefined the 14th Amendment to say that corporations—rather than the recently freed African-Americans—were entitled to special protection under the law.
There’s a problem—corporations aren’t people. A corporation can’t breathe, talk or react to the world they way people do. While a corporation’s workforce is made up of people, corporate decisions are confined to the top executives of that corporation. The doctrine of corporate personhood allows America’s corporate leaders to use the profits earned by their workers to directly influence the policies made in Washington that affect them the most.
Until now, that influence was limited by campaign finance laws. It is now perfectly legal for a corporate executive to set up a political action committee to spend unlimited amounts of his company’s profits on promoting and/or attacking candidates for office.
Let’s say that a candidate is running for Congress against another candidate. A corporate executive can approach both candidates and propose to spend $25 million on behalf of the candidate, but on the grounds that the candidate supports the corporation’s goals—such as blocking regulations on how much toxic waste they can dump in a local river. If one candidate refuses, the executive can set up a political action committee, put $25 million in its account and run a smear campaign against the candidate that refused. The other candidate will easily win under those circumstances.
This is not an exaggeration. It is now perfectly legal to bribe and threaten members of Congress to do your bidding if you’re a corporate executive.
Individuals can still only give up to $4,600 to a candidate of their choice. It is now possible for corporations to band together and run advertisements attacking presidential candidates throughout the election cycle. It could make Citizens United look like a sideshow operation. This ruling has cemented the prevailing trend in American politics today—only the wealthy or the bribed can run for office.
A government in which the rich rule is no democracy, and the Supreme Court knows this. This 5-4 decision has used a questionable judicial doctrine as a fig leaf to cover a big fat political gift to big business. The ruling barely touches the actual case regarding Hillary: The Movie—instead, it concentrates on the argument that corporations are more entitled to influence our democracy than individuals.
It is a dark day indeed in America when the highest court in the land sells itself out to the highest bidder. Needless to say, democracy didn’t win the bidding war. ­

Stephen Yellin is a senior History major.