Two editors argue the Majority and Minority opinions of the recent supreme court case, Citizens United v. FEC
Supreme Correction
Andrea Royals
– News Editor-
People are prone to make mistakes, and by ruling against the Federal Election Commission in Citizens United v. FEC, the members of the Supreme Court corrected one.
“We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats,” said Chief Justice John Roberts in defense of the 5-4 decision, which amends a series of constitutional bloopers: the Tillman Act of 1907, the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971, and most recently the Bipartisan Campaign Act of 2002, more commonly referred to as McCain-Feingold.
All parts of the mistake have one thing in common: each silence the constitutional privilege of free speech for the sake of campaign finance reform. This regulated behavior lowers the high level of competition that is expected of democratic political campaigns.
The First Amendment encourages the right of all people to “petition the government for a redress of grievances,” and this should be supported, rather than suppressed, with enthusiasm during an election.
Yet, it seems many Americans are infuriated with the Supreme Court’s correction. During the 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama did not hesitate to make enemies with the judicial body when he said that “the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests.”
Obama implied that the judiciary had been taking advantage of their honorable position by engaging in inappropriate activism. In actuality, the Supreme Court had been defending its role in the separation of powers. The president’s remark, among other accusations from countless critics, is completely false.
To deny private organizations the right to political expenditures for fear of corrupt influence is to deny the freedom of expression when no proven corruption has taken place. The accusation that the political system or corporate donations system is corrupt is too ambiguous to be substantially confirmed.
“The idea that government must approve the content and timing of political speech upon a threat of prison is inimical to America,” said David Bossie, president of Citizens United. Bossie’s nonprofit organization produced “Hillary: The Movie,” a documentary exposing negative facts regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the crucial days before the 2008 presidential primary election.
Citizens United intended to show the documentary via video-on-demand, but had been prohibited from distributing the film.
“Political speech, above all else, should be protected in this country,” Bossie said.
However, private organizations and the careers of politicians are at risk. If an advertisement fails, then the politician may fail, and vice versa. This new freedom brings several gambles that all parties must be willing to take for the sake of fair competition, and most importantly for the sake of the Constitution.
The reverse in campaign finance reform requires integrity and activism. The decision demands that individuals strengthen their political understanding during elections, while allowing corporations and politicians the fairness each deserves in the election process.
With this correction, democracy will only be more fun to play.
Supreme Blunder
Collin Reischman
– Managing Editor-
The Supreme Court of the United States of America robbed the American voter of one of their inherent rights a few weeks ago. In a 5-4 decision on Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, unions, and wealthy private interest groups would no longer be limited in expenditures related to federal elections.
The decision was backed by Justice Kennedy thusly, “The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”
Some argue that corporations should be treated as citizens, and they may exercise their right to donate and promote any politician or political cause that they want.
To suggest that this new decision creates equality in freedom of speech is to suggest that corporations are equal to normal American citizens.
Corporations have never before been treated as individuals. They can evade U.S. tax law by moving their money offshore, they can undermine minimum wage laws by sending jobs to poorer nations or hiring illegal immigrants to work for slave wages, they can be controlled or heavily influenced by foreign interests, and as was asserted in the minority position, can have interests contrary to the common welfare.
Corporations and unions boast huge bank accounts, thousands of active employees and shareholders, and often operate outside the law. By granting them “equal rights” to political speech, we are creating unequal circumstances for the American public.
The power to elect public officials is granted equally to all law-abiding adult citizens. These citizens have no offshore bank accounts nor do they have teams of media and advertising specialists to orchestrate massive influence through advertisement and donation.
When a private business or union begins to exert unchecked influence over public affairs, it hinders the operation of our democracy. Business owners exist to make profit and to keep shareholders happy, and will flex their new-found power to achieve these goals.
When the American voters walk into the booth to elect a president or senator, they aren’t worried about profit margins, or shareholders, or stocks. They vote for candidates based on their own private notions of effective leadership.
The hope of our nation, the promise made so many times in so many history classes, civics lessons and grandiose speeches made by men in suits, is that all have an equal voice through the power of representative democracy.
When five justices decided to hand even more power to the small percentage of our rich and influential population, they took away the power and control of the common man, and our inalienable right to seek equal protection from the government. This new ruling grants further influence to the few, and takes liberty from the many.
The steps that have been taken by the court will reduce the power of the voter to influence public elections, and is therefore a threat to everything our democracy is founded upon.
On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court made the rich, entitled and powerful more important to policy makers than the average man, and they broke the heart of the American dream.
