Supreme Court ruling will have long-term effects

The Supreme Court’s decision to give corporations the freedom to spend unrestricted money on political campaign advertising was shocking, no matter from which side of the political fence one views it. The timing of the 5-4 decision could not have been worse, considering the string of corporate excesses seen during the past decade. American citizens are fed up with corporate coddling, bailouts, executive bonuses and a lack of accountability. Now these companies are going to be allowed to spend as much as they want to elect their chosen candidates, right up until Election Day.

One of the disturbing aspects of the court’s decision is its affirmation of the notion that a corporation has the same rights as an individual American citizen, despite the fact that corporations don’t live, breathe, vote or register for the draft. The court contends that restricting a corporation’s ability to fund campaigns violates its First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech, even though a corporation is a not an individual, but a grouping of many who likely differ in their political views.

The decision certainly has the appearance of a partisan showdown in the one place in Washington where it should not occur. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said corporations’ rights cannot be arbitrarily limited. “We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject,†he wrote. “As the foregoing analysis confirms, the court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment.â€

In contrast, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent questioned the “corporation as citizen†philosophy. “The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the court’s disposition of this case,†he wrote. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.â€

Stevens went on to say it is the duty of the lawmakers to know when to rein in corporate influence on U.S. elections. Good point, since it is unlikely that those spending the money at corporations will take steps to rein themselves in when the stakes are high at election times, and one candidate has been much more supportive of legislation favoring certain corporate needs. This decision opens the door to international interference in U.S. elections as well, since corporate money in the 21st century is controlled not only by hands in this country, but by investors all over the world.

American voters can only hope that this decision is readdressed with future cases that will bring into question the wisdom shown by the justices with this ruling. The inevitable outcome for the nation will be undue and ever-increasing corporate control of political power in the United States. The complete decision is worth reading online at law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html.