The Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 21 that it is unconstitutional for the government to set limits on the amount of money corporations can give to political campaigns. This retracts part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Bill, which was one of the first pieces of legislation to regulate political election campaigns by putting a limit on the amount corporations can donate to politicians. This Court decision increases the influences of corporations on the outcome of elections.

According to the Supreme Court’s official website, Citizens United brought the case to court. Citizens United, a non-profit political action committee, funded a film entitled “Hillary: The Movie.” The film features and analyzes New York Governor Hillary Clinton. When Citizens United wanted to charge for seeing the movie, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) took issue, citing the McCain-Feingold Bill’s $2000 limit on political funding. Citizens United felt this was unfair and brought the case to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that corporations cannot have limited spending on a political campaign.

The Court ruled that it is extending the rights and protection of the First Amendment to corporations, meaning the government cannot limit political speech in terms of monetary donations.

Marketing teacher Rebecca Murphy is passionately against the ruling. She fears that politicians will not pass legislation based on the good of the people, but instead in the favor of those who fund them.

“In economics, we subscribe to the theory that everyone acts in their own self interest,” Murphy said. “I’m not sure having corporations act in their own self interest will result in decisions that are in the best interest of our citizens.”

Senior Nathan Goldman also feels that this self interest is not in citizens’ best interest.

“I’m willing to bet most of the richest corporations in America aren’t necessarily concerned with getting kids the best education possible,” Goldman said.

Goldman keeps himself informed with political happenings and is afraid of the repercussions of the bill.

“We could see some fascinating and horrifying things happening,” Goldman said. “Say, corporations being allowed to vote. It seems ridiculous, but it’s a step in that direction.”

The decision was made by just one vote: five Justices for Citizens United and four Justices against. President Barack Obama expressed disapproval for the Court in his State of the Union address on Jan. 26. Obama feels that this new decision will allow other countries to influence the elections that should solely depend on American citizens.

“The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said in his State of the Union. “[Elections] should be decided by the American people.”

Goldman sees the Court’s ruling as a return to Gilded Age politics of the early 20th century, where corporations were granted the same rights as people and democracy was corrupted by big businesses who used lawmakers as pawns.

“Rich businesses will own any politician who can be bought,” Goldman said. “Those who can’t be bought will probably not get the financial support they need to get elected.”

Though the McCain-Feingold bill capped corporate donations to campaigns, individuals were allowed to spend freely. According to the Federal Elections Commission, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts spent over $5.5 million dollars campaigning. Over $2 million came from businesses.

“Politicians are supposed to be accountable to the American citizenry as a whole,” Goldman said. “After this, we are going to see an increase in politicians who are accountable only to corporations.”

Junior Peter Bautz has also been following the case. He sides with Obama and predicts that the ruling will be overturned.

“The court decision is either going to be mitigated or overturned,” Bautz said. “The Obama administration wants to mitigate it, and there is a big countermovement against corporations because of the financial crisis.”
Discontent with the government among citizens has been prevalent since Obama was elected. Throughout 2009, Tea Party protests and the Tea Party movement oppose “big government” have been orchestrated by conservatives who call themselves the “Tea Party Patriots.” The Tea Party movement’s mission statement posted on their website is “to secure public policy consistent with… fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.” They are organized based on the core values of the Constitution and demonstrate their dissent with the government through planned protests, marches and rallies.

If Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commision is not overturned, Bautz and Goldman believe there is a danger of political candidates being “bought” by corporations, thus disallowing the people’s say in democracy.

“The real question is what is the freedom of speech, and if it applies to corporations,” Bautz said. “These rights have never been applied to corporations before, and the question is if they should be.”

Print FriendlyPrint