bus200 debate issue essay

8/2/2019 Bus200 Debate Issue Essay

1/12

1Running head: CORPORATIONS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS INDIVIDUALSTO FUND AND ENGAGE IN POLITICAL SPEECH: CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC

Corporations Should Have the Same Rights as

Individuals to Fund and Engage in Political Speech: Citizens United V. FEC

Kevin MulcaheyBUS200-05

Professor Monseau11/13/11


2/12


3/12

3CORPORATIONS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS INDIVIDUALS TO FUNDAND ENGAGE IN POLITICAL SPEECH: CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC

cable video-on-demand. The FEC had two main reasons for cracking down on Citizens United.

First, Citizens United used general corporate treasury funds that were donated from for-profit

corporations, which is barred by the BCRA. Citizens United could have avoided this stipulation

by using a Political Action Committee treasury (PAC) for the funding of its film, which is legal

under the BCRA. Secondly, Citizens United aired what the FEC considered to be an

electioneering communication, which is any cable, broadcast, or satellite communication, within

30 to 60 days of a primary or election. This was also illegal under BCRA. The Supreme Court

ruled most of BCRA unconstitutional on the basis that corporations could not be limited from

the, funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections, under the First

Amendment (oyez citizens).

Citizens United v. FECwas hardly the first Supreme Court case that sought to resolve the

issue over campaign finance reform. By ruling in favor of Citizens United in 2010, the Supreme

Court overturned decades of case law. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said

that the BCRA, disparage[s] governing Supreme Court case law (Jost 2002). In his defense,

the Supreme Court stated in the 1976 case ofBuckley v. Valeo that political speech and political

spending were so closely related that First Amendment rights must be considered (Witt).

Furthermore, as Justice Kennedy mentioned in his majority opinion of the Citizens United case,

it is unlawful for the government to restrict, the freedom to think for ourselves, and if the First

Amendment is ever violated in this manner, legislation must be overturned. However, the idea

that previous case law has given corporations the freedom to support or oppose any candidate

with any type of funding is false.


4/12


Despite finding money and speech related inBuckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court chose

to restrict the ways in which corporations could contribute. It decided that, limitations of the

FECA enhance the integrity of our system of representative democracy (Oyez Buckley).

Regardless of whether or not a corporation is corrupt, restricting corporate campaign financing

prevents disillusionment with the electoral process. Again, in the 1989 decision ofAustin v.

Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could not use

general treasury funds supplied by for-profit corporations to finance campaigns. Its ruling sought

to dispel corruption or perceived corruption witnessed by voters. Clearly, the Supreme Court has

had a history of restricting some corporate speech to protect our political process.

In the 2002 case ofMcConnell v. FEC, with Senator McConnell as the plaintiff, the

Supreme Court again ruled in favor of restricting corporate campaign finance. The BCRA sought

to restrict soft-money, or implicit advocacy of politicians through corporate funding, and the

court found that this was constitutional. In the majority opinion, OConnor and Stevens reasoned

that express advocacy of a candidate would deem more First Amendment protection, because it

reflects direct political views. Soft-money corporate contributions attempt to circumvent the law

through vaguenessbecause "money, like water, will always find an outlet, as stated by Justice

OConnor (oyez mcconnell).To the contrary of McConnells assertion that the Supreme Court

has definitively protected corporate speech, case law appears to be in favor of restricting the role

of corporations in campaign funding.

Another argument posed by experts who oppose restrictions on corporate campaign

financing is that real political speech is not possible without money. As Sean Parnell of the

Center of Competitive Politics states, Limiting money spent on politics infringes on the First


5/12


Amendment because effective political speech requires money. This principle applies whether a

citizen-activist copies a flyer for distribution, a candidate purchases radio ads or an interest group

reserves TV time to promote its agenda (Jost). Jay Mandel, an economics professor at Colgate

University also argues that other means of campaign funding such as public financing are,

underfunded as elections, have become much more expensive (Billitteri). Evidence given by

justices and other experts will prove that corporate spending is not completely restricted, and that

public financing is more relevant than the opposition asserts.

Rather than prohibiting corporate political speech entirely, campaign finance law mostly

focuses on the types of funds and the time frame in which they are used. Citizens United was

confronted by the FEC because they chose to fund the film Hilary from general treasury funds

that were formed by for-profit corporate funds. Had Citizens United taken funds from its PAC

treasury or a separate political treasury, there would not have been a contribution issue. Justice

Stevens, upon reviewing previous case law, believes that, the ability to form political action

committees provides corporations with a constitutionally sufficient opportunity to finance

electioneering (oyez citizens). Also, as the term electioneering communication stipulates in the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, other mediums can be used for speech. The internet, for

example, does not count as an electioneering communication (oyez stevens dissent). The time

frame in which corporations can spend their money toward speech is quite lenient as well. As

long as the ad is not within 30 to 60 days of an election, depending on what kind, the ad will be

allowed regardless of the type of funding. Therefore, there is more evidence that the restriction

placed upon free speech is much narrower than opposing lawmakers like McConnell assert.


6/12


Public financing is another option that does not limit political discussion. When a

politician opts for public financing, the government supplies the candidate an initial sum, and

then matching funds for the amount of private contributions their opponent receives (oyez

Arizona). The Supreme Court found in 1976 that public financing is an effort not to, censor

speech, but rather to use public money to facilitate and enlarge public discussion and

participation in the electoral process (jost). Thus, candidates that have less funding from special

interest corporations have an even playing field during an election to inform the electorate of

their platforms (cooper 2000). Under current provisions, politicians can choose to deny publicly

financed contributions in favor of private money, which is what makes matching schemes so

expensive (cooper 2000). Additionally, the idea that public financing is underfunded, as stated

earlier by Mandel, is contradicted by the $67.5 million Bush and Gore received in public

financing during the 2000 election (cooper 2000).

A final assertion made by opposing experts, as well as the majority decision in Citizens

United v. FEC, is that corporations have the same rights as human beings (Oyez citizens).

Senator Mitch McConnell states in another CQ Researcher review that, soft money, issue

advocacy, express advocacy, PACs and all the rest are nothing more than euphemisms for First

Amendment-protected, political-speech-and-association means of amplifying one's voice in this

vast nation of 270 million people (cooper 2000). It is assumed by restricting corporate

campaign financing that businesses want to corrupt officeholders, when corporations are

donating because they simply want voice their First Amendment rights for better government

(jost 2010). The dissenting opinion of the Citizens United case directly refutes these claims by

stating that corporations do not receive the same First Amendment guarantees as people.


7/12


Justice John Paul Stevens states in his dissent that, the distinction between corporate and

human speakers is significant (oyez citizens). There are a number of reasons why corporations

should not be viewed as people in the electoral process. According to Stevens, the interests of

eligible voters may conflict directly with the interests of non-resident corporations (oyez

citizens). Because corporations are organized with the goal of maximizing shareholder value,

corporations must engage in the electoral process with their shareholders in mind, which

undermines our political process (oyez citizens). An individual human being does not have to

appease shareholders, and votes for the candidate who will benefit society the most.

Furthermore, voters believe that they have less of a voice in the political process when

corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money toward a particular candidate. When

corruption is perceived by the voter, they may decide that voting is meaningless (mccain Jost

02). Acts like the BCRA assure voters, that unregulated contributions [will not] pose a serious

threat to our democracy (jost mccain 02).

Another point that Stevens makes is that the First Amendment can be partially restricted

based on the speaker or institution when there is a, legitimate governmental interest (oyez

citizens). Students, members of the armed forces, and government employees are routinely

restricted from absolute free speech (oyez citizens). The First Amendment does not absolutely

guarantee speech free of any regulation (oyez citizens). In fact, a danger that is associated with

allowing a corporation completely unrestricted and unregulated free speech is that not all

corporations that influence our political process are American (oyez citizens). Multinational

corporations would have the same rights to political speech as individual American citizens

according to the majority opinion ofCitizens United v. FEC(oyez citizens). Although it is


8/12


slightly more obvious, it is a pertinent example of why corporations are very different from

human beings and have vested interests at heart (oyez citizens).

The decisionin Citizens United v. FECshocked and outraged a majority of citizens,

regardless of their political affiliation (jost). General sentiment by the public against the decision

ofCitizens United v. FECproves a general consensus among the public that corporations are not

human beings, and do not have the same rights to political speech (jost). Voters believe that they

have less of a voice in the political process when corporations can spend unlimited amounts of

money toward a particular candidate. Because corporations have shareholder and profit goals in

mind, regulation is necessary to curb vested interests from outweighing the voice of constituents.

Additionally, decades of case law and statutes dating back to the 1970s and 1980s have

generally accepted the idea that placing contribution limits on corporations does not unduly

restrict First Amendment rights. Generally, campaign finance reform, such as the BCRA, does

not restrict the message of political speech, but rather how it is funded. Campaign finance reform

holds a rightful place in U.S. legislation in order to protect the sanctity of our democracy, and

does not place the heavy burden on corporate speech that some experts believe.


9/12



10/12



11/12


Works Cited

Jost, K. (2010, May 28). Campaign finance debates. CQ Researcher, 20, 457-480. Retrieved

from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

Witt, E. (1985). The Modern First Amendment.Editorial research reports 1985 (Vol. I).

Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved from

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1985010400

Jost, K. (2002, November 22). Campaign finance showdown. CQ Researcher, 12, 969-992.

Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-KentCollege of Law. 10 November 2011. .


12/12


MCCONNELL v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-KentCollege of Law. 12 November 2011. .

Billitteri, T. J. (2008, June 13). Campaign finance reform. CQ Researcher, 18, 505-528.


Cooper, M. H. (2000, March 31). Campaign finance reform. CQ Researcher, 10, 257-280.


CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-

Kent College of Law. 15 November 2011. .

bus200 debate issue essay

Documents