Are Corporations People? Does it matter?
When the Supreme Court delivered the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, President Obama lamented that the nine justices had reversed a century of law and opened the floodgates for unlimited spending. Super PACs formed, Stephen Colbert mockingly launched his own, and now, campaign finance has been dramatically changed. Or has it? The prevalent belief is that the 2010 Citizens United decision treating corporations as people with free speech rights has drowned out the voices of actual people in a flow of corporate money. Many disagree with the ruling because it seems like money is dictating who gets to speak. Their main concern is the effect it will have on the 2012 presidential election and other political campaigns. While Citizens United has had an effect on campaign finance, it is not the revolutionary decision that the left demonizes and the right avoids discussing.
Although corporations couldn’t contribute to a specific party or candidate before Citizens United, they could write unlimited checks to social welfare groups, organizations focused on issues rather than politics. While this money could not go to an advertisement expressly supporting one candidate, it could indirectly persuade voters through statements such as, “President Bush has led us to a never-ending war.” These ads containing candidates’ names were fine as long as they aired more than 60 days before an election. After Citizens United, outside groups are now allowed to use corporate money to make a direct case for any candidate. Social welfare groups have been replaced by Super PACs, which function similarly except that political action committees are required to disclose donors’ identities for transparency.
Indignant opponents have argued that the decreased regulation on political speech has caused the large increase in political donations we’ve seen this campaign. New York Times chief political correspondent Matt Bai disagrees. He argues that Citizens United hasn’t actually changed the landscape of campaign finance. “While it is true that corporations can now give money for specific purposes that were prohibited before,” Bai explains, “it seems they aren’t, or at least not at a level that accounts for anything like the sudden influx of money into the system.”
In an amicus curiae brief for a recent Montana campaign finance case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained that none of the Fortune 100 companies, which the public regularly demonizes, have contributed to any of the eight Republican Super PACs. In fact, 86.32% of the money was contributed by individuals. So, if Citizens United were reversed today, would anything even change?
The 86.32% would remain. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that “money is speech” and therefore, should not be limited. Citizens United strengthened Buckley by removing specific limits on how individuals could donate, and as Matt Bai argues, “…the rising amount of outside money was bound to reach ever more staggering levels with or without Citizens United.”
It is highly improbable that public outrage would subside even if these facts and arguments were plastered on every website, TV channel, and street corner. The influence of money has taken over almost every venue of American culture, and Americans are resentful. It seems that those who are poor are not heard, those who are middle-class are simply stuck in the middle, and those who are rich only get richer. People are feeling neglected because the economic downturn leaves the middle class with less money and less confidence every day. So they find a position, stick with it regardless of facts or arguments, and the never-ending political fight begins. The solution to this problem lies in abandoning bitter partisanship to make effective changes in economic policy. It doesn’t really matter if corporations are people. What really matters is if Americans face their economic distress openly and honestly instead of using a court case as a bogeyman for their frustrations.