Laryngitis of a Generation

BY ALISON SCHREIBER

Four years and one fortnight ago the Supreme Court of the United States of America made a monumental and infamous decision. This verdict would disregard 100 years of precedent and would lead to an exceptionally expensive election. Overturning Austin and McConnell while affirming Buckley and Bellotti, this decision relied heavily upon the majority’s opinion in the latter cases and the minorities’ in the former. The result? The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Citizens United v. FEC that limiting independent expenditures by corporations on the basis of it being “electioneering communication” is unconstitutional.

The full implications of this court case are still unknown. As of now, we know that the 2012 election cycle was the most expensive American election yet. In the Missouri Senate election, alone, the amount of money contributed to campaigns by Political Action Committees, i.e. the group of donors most heavily affected by Citizens United, to the incumbent Claire McCaskill nearly tripled. While these concrete facts are alarming enough, it is the theoretical implications of this court case that are even more frightening.

The belief that corporations and “natural persons” should be subjected to identical treatment under the Bill of Rights is inherently problematic. It may be true that corporations are composed of individual human beings who have a need to maintain their own personal rights, but the conclusion that we must then afford the corporation as a whole those civil liberties causes a cacophony of issues. Most saliently, corporations are not subjected to the same punitive charges as individual citizens. Whereas Martha Stewart served five months in a federal correctional facility for insider trading, those who were responsible for the economic collapse of Wall Street and ultimately the Great Recession faced no criminal charges. The charges that would normally accompany the gross negligence practiced by the executives of these banks were precluded by the fact that it was the banks, i.e. corporations, who were at fault—the true perpetrators ultimately being protected by the face of their business. While the fact that corporations do not face the same punishment for crimes is unjust, the moral code by which corporations operate makes this reality wholly problematic.

Towards the end of last December, a post on “Overheard at WashU” garnered an unparalleled amount of attention: 400+ comments in response to the “B-School, Pre-School” pithy. Although the majority of these comments centered on competing beliefs of communism and capitalism, there was one central theme that much of the argument grew from: corporate ethics are entirely distinct from the ethics we pride ourselves on, and what is considered the morally right thing to do for a business would be considered morally inexcusable to most Americans. In particular, business ethics conflates practices that do not maximize profits with thievery—for to not maximize your profits is to have stolen from your shareholders. In this sense, every business decision must focus on generating the greatest revenue, a practice that will often conflict with the wellbeing of the people and society in general (e.g. increased output from coal mines may increase profits, but also cause health issues). From a political standpoint, when corporations have a strong influence on elections our political system is influenced by an entirely new set of ethics that does not have the typical human conscience.

Additionally, corporations can negatively affect elections in a very tangible way. In being partially responsible for an elected official’s success, corporations can compel politicians to implement favorable polices for that corporation. However, it should also be noted that such expenditures from the general treasury of a corporation do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the shareholders or the beliefs of the members of the corporation. Such misrepresentation of those in association with a corporation is most evident here at Washington University in St. Louis. While Todd Akin was highly criticized by the student body for his belief that the female body has “natural defenses” against “legitimate rape”, Washington University—which otherwise maintains a fairly progressive social agenda, as evidenced by current initiatives like the Mosaic Project—nevertheless donated $23,200 to the controversial candidate.

In the same way that conflating corporations and “natural persons” is problematic, so too is equating money with speech—a concept that was introduced and affirmed during the court case Buckley v. Valeo. While money can show support for a certain candidate, belief, or coffee vendor, money is nevertheless just property. Forged by the government and institutionalized by society, this currency is not an inherent, inalienable right; it is earned slowly through hard work. It is a means by which we can voice our opinion more audibly, but it can never replace our voice itself. Although not all of our voices project as well, we all nevertheless have an equal right to that voice. And it is this detail that is so integral to understanding why we cannot treat money as speech.

By the very nature of capitalism, money is distributed unequally among the population. Freedom of speech is not. Each individual is protected equally, a fact firmly established by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, if speech is to include money, then certain individuals—most obviously, the rich—are protected more by the First Amendment. This reality causes the further stratification of our socioeconomic system. In this regard, equating money with speech in a capitalist society not only violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but also deepens the chasm between the rich and the poor in America. While accepting economic inequality is inevitable in a capitalist society, accepting political inequality is antithetical to our democracy.

These two very real problems of affording corporations and natural persons, as well as money and speech, the same protections of the Bill of Rights cannot be understated. Since Citizens United, we have seen an outpouring of money by corporations in our elections. In fact, during the 2012 election cycle, the top 32 donors for the entire election were responsible for donating as much as the sum donated by all other 3.7 million Americans. Not only is such a statistic problematic in and of itself, it is also essential to note that these independent expenditures used for “electioneering communication” are often done in the form of negative advertising. Such a practice not only allows politicians to no longer dirty their hands, but also discourages voter turnout, as negative advertising is highly negatively correlated with voter participation. In an age when the moderate voice is already being under appreciated and suppressed by zealous extremism, the negative advertising funded anonymously by corporations will only serve to further polarize the American political system.

Although this situation is seemingly bleak, there is hope. As a people, we have the ability to elect officials to Congress who can change the current reality of our campaign finance system. Admittedly, the fact that the Supreme Court protects current policies that maintain the status quo confounds the typical pathways used by politicians to create change. However, it cannot be ignored, nor should it, that there are ways to subvert these misguided efforts of the Court. In particular, a constitutional amendment is being proposed as a way to clarify the distinction between corporations and natural persons, as well as money and speech.  With 500 cities and 16 states in support of such an amendment, we are well on our way to rectifying the mistakes of the Court. As students of Washington University, we too have the ability to appeal to any level of government we see fit. We too have a voice in this political process. We have a right to this voice and it is our duty to use it for the betterment of our community and for the betterment of this country.