Less than three weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for money and corruption to walk right into political campaigns. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that limits by the Federal Election Commission (an independent agency that regulates campaign finance legislation) on spending for political advertisements by corporations were unconstitutional because they infringed on a corporation’s freedom of speech.

In the case, Citizens United, a right-leaning nonprofit organization, appealed a lower court’s decision that prohibited it from advertising its movie titled ‘Hillary: The Movie,’ a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton, because it was within 30 days of the primary elections. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision 5-4, and in the process paved the way for corporations to influence elections even more than they already do.

This decision repealed a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 (better known as the McCain-Feingold Bill) that prohibited political ads from airing within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. It is now possible for corporations and unions to run political ads regardless of the ads’ timing. While conservatives have been praising the bill as a vindication of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment, the real motive for their support lies elsewhere.

Although this may at first glance seem like a fair decision that protects our freedoms as citizens, it not only favors one party over the other but also completely ignores the fact that corruption follows money, especially in Washington. Republicans will argue that there are many corporations that favor Democrats and that large corporations won’t get involved in politics for fear of losing customers. They will also point out that unions historically side with Democrats and that this decision allows unions the same rights it allows corporations. The only problem with these arguments is that the majority of corporations side with Republicans, and corporate capital far exceeds that of unions.Thomas Keck, a professor of political science at Syracuse University who focuses on public law and judicial politics, explained why Democrats oppose the decision while Republicans support it.

‘If you look at the reactions of this decision, the Republicans have mostly been praising it and Democrats have mostly been criticizing it,’ Keck said. ‘And I think that’s because they have a reasonable impression that it is likely to benefit Republicans more than Democrats. It is certainly the case that corporations have more money than unions do and the case that corporations disproportionately spend on behalf of the Republicans.’ Keith Bybee, a political science professor at SU who specializes in legal theory and American politics, addressed the corruption that may follow the lack of spending limits and influx of money.

‘I was concerned with how little weight was given to the corruption argument by the majority,’ Bybee said. ‘I’m concerned that this voting bloc on the court seems not to be taking very seriously the possibility that we should guard against corruption both in fact and appearance in the electoral process.’

Another aspect of this case is the 100-year-old legal concept of treating corporations as people, an illogical idea that seems to stretch corporate rights as much as possible. Although corporations are the backbone of America’s monetary success, their money-making ability should not influence their rights. Corporations are not human beings, and thus the freedom of speech principle outlined in the Bill of Rights should not apply to them. This idea is a slippery slope and is one that could lead to a plethora of other irrational decisions. (If corporations are treated as people, maybe they should be able to stockpile weapons and ammunition. It’s their constitutional right isn’t it?)

Corporations possess a great deal more money, power and influence than citizens, yet this decision treats corporations and citizens as if they are one and the same. Corporations can afford political ads; your everyday citizen cannot. It seems that this decision is based more on the political leanings of the Court’s justices and less off their legal reasoning.

Samuel Blackstone is a sophomore magazine journalism and political science major. His column appears weekly and he can be reached at sblackst@syr.edu.

Published on February 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm