Recent Supreme Court decision gives political benefit to corporations, not individuals

Political beliefs are determined by several factors: family and friends for example. But any political scientist will tell you that media is an increasingly important influence, especially on youth. One particularly potent form of media, advertising, is about to become even more pervasive, thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, the form of media — corporate-funded political ads – is almost sure to have a negative impact.

In a recent 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down laws governing spending on political advertising by corporations and unions. Prior to the ruling, the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act prevented TV and radio ads funded by those groups from appearing within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Corporations and unions can now spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads.

This decision is a mistake for several reasons. First, the Court’s decision violates Constitutional principles. Though the Court claims that the 1^st Amendment justifies their ruling, their decision actually reflects a basic flawing in their interpretation of it. Corporations have existed since the time of the Founding Fathers yet are not mentioned in the Constitution as having the same rights as people. Thomas Jefferson, in particular, was fearful of the influence of corporations and hoped to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations.”

Furthermore, unlike human rights, the rights of a corporation are not inalienable. A corporation must be granted a charter and rights by the state. Those rights are not and should not be tantamount to those of human citizens.

Another common defense is that the 14th Amendment gives corporations the same rights as people. In fact, the amendment was added to ensure that newly freed slaves gained full citizenship after the Civil War. Using it to defend corporate personhood is in a completely different spirit than amendment was written in. Simply put, corporations have no legal basis to claim the right of free speech.

Beyond Constitutional issues, the practical implications of the decision are also significant. Supporters of the decision claim that the decision restores free speech. In fact, it makes it harder for the average American to express their opinion.

Our nation is built on democracy and free speech protects that democracy by guaranteeing every person a voice. Creating an environment for free expression means allowing everyone to be heard, not just lifting spending limits. When corporations may spend freely, they drown out other voices. The days of the soapbox are gone, and free speech now almost requires some amount of money to be heard. TV and radio stations broadcast ads from the advertisers who pay the most.

In real terms, this means that the corporation will win out over the citizen or small group every time. The median household income in 2007 was roughly $50,000, according to the US Census Bureau. By contrast, Wal-Mart’s 2009 net income was $13.5 billion. Wal-Mart can drop $10,000 on a political ad without even noticing the missing money. The average American family cannot. This is not free speech but priveleged speech

Campaign finance rules don’t limit free speech — if the heads of corporations want to speak freely, they’re allowed to do so, with their own money or through a political action committee (PAC.) But, it’s unfair to use enormous corporate profits to speak for a non-political organization whose members may disagree with the message.

Finally, the ruling establishes a dangerous precedent by allowing corporations to be considered “persons.” This ruling overturns campaign finance reforms that have existed in some form for decades. Future courts could use this ruling as a springboard to grant corporations even more rights. One remote yet disturbing possibility is that the court could allow corporations to donate directly to candidates.