On January 21, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations had equal rights as individual citizens with regard to campaign contributions during political elections. This therefore implies that corporations also enjoy the protection of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights (Freedom of Speech). The court case was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Levin-Waldman, 2011, 178). The above reaction to the court decision is from the liberal side and I agree. I think that the decision was not good and not respectful of the rights of citizens. Democracy is no longer powerful when campaign elections can be won by having the most money.
The concept of corporations having a definition of ‘personhood’ started in the 1870s (Levin-Waldman, 2011, 198). At that time corporations were recognized as groups of people, since the people in the group were citizens, the corporation was granted (by association to its owners) certain rights to the corporations. Also the corporations from two hundred years ago and even from one hundred fifty years ago have a much different structure and character from the contemporary corporations. Modern corporations have control over many different types of interests which include international components. The court case also includes unions giving them the same rights as corporations in Citizen’s United. I would argue that since Unions are groups of people that pay dues and make decisions based on a democratic process that they should be treated differently than corporations. The majority opinion did not address the difference between how much corporations and how much individual citizens can contribute to a political campaign or how the decision would impact democratic elections.
The Citizens United case is still highly controversial and brings up some of the most difficult issues for trying to reach a consensus in public opinion of the early 2000s. The U.S. Supreme Court is the top of the federal hierarchy of the judicial branch of the government. Article III of the Constitution created by the Supreme Court states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Supreme Court is particularly charged with considering cases with a connection to Constitutional Law. At its foundation the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is a determination about Federal voting laws and the limitation of their jurisdiction. (Levin-Waldman, 2011, 198). The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens filed partial dissent with Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayer. Justice Thomas dissented that the decision did not rule far enough in favor of the use of corporate and union campaign funding and concurred with part. (Miller, 2010, para. 1) The majority opinion supported the idea that a corporation can make campaign contributions just as individual citizens can. The dissenting opinions were based on the separation of powers argument which is that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court can only interpret them. (Levin-Waldman, 2011, 198)
The court has been accused of using judicial activism because the original case brought before the judges needed a much smaller in scope decision. The United Citizens case had been heard in the Washington, D.D. Federal District Court which ruled on their interpretation of the The McCain-Feingold Act (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 (BCRA). That decision meant that a political video could not be aired 60 days before the election or 30 days prior to a primary. And that corporations, non-profit corporations or unions could not pay to have it aired. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court which did not only content itself with the case at hand but expanded the decision to First Amendment right to corporations, non-profit corporations or unions and exploded the limits set for campaign funding by corporations.
The decision could be considered a judicial activism. If it were an example of judicial restraint then court decision would have interpreted the BCRA 2002 with more respect towards its original purpose. If it had been a decision based upon original standing the Justice Kennedy would have based the argument on original intention of the writers of the Constitution and their original meaning. That meaning could not have foreseen the circumstances of the contemporary world or the impact of corporate money on election campaigns. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and must be accepted by the Senate. So that is that path by which political allegiances to one or the other political party enter the Supreme Court decision-making process. (748 words)
References
Levin-Waldman, Oren M. (2011). The Judiciary. Chapter 7. The Constitution. San Diego, CA: Bridgeport Education, Inc. Print. pp. 198 – 227.
Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission (No. 08-205), Decided January 21, 2010. Legal Information Institute (LII). Cornell University Law School. n.d. Web. Accessed 5 May 2012from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html/.
Miller, Erin. (2010). Citizens United v. FEC opinion. Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Blog. 21 January. Web. Accessed 2 May 2012 from http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/citizens-united-v-fec-opinion/
