A SCOTUS Decision Dud: Corporate Campaign Limits

PrintEmail

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled (pdf) that corporations should be allowed to spend freely in political elections. The decision will have a profound impact on how candidates are elected, starting with the Congressional campaigns in the fall. And the reactions have been heated.
 
President Obama, who has vowed to fight the ruling, called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." John McCain, who co-sponsored legislation to limit the power of corporations in the political process, said he was "disappointed." Meanwhile, conservatives such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it an "important step" for First Amendment rights. (For a comprehensive list of reactions, click here.)
 
Here's my side, which I encourage my YPNation colleagues and others with dissenting opinions to debate:
 
It's true that, in theory, every American entity—including corporations—should be afforded the right to support or oppose whatever politician they choose, as protected by the First Amendment. But there's a big difference between voicing your opinion and backing it up with money. And simply put, corporations and individuals are not created equal on this front.
 
As Pat Choate wrote in the Huffington Post, "Who of us can afford a $1 million dollar television or radio buy or $120,000 for a one-page ad in the New York Times or even the modest rates of even the smaller media?" In other words, how will anyone--including the unions the ruling also applies to--be able to compete?
 
Already, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and other pillars of corporate wealth have an inordinate amount of sway in the political arena. With the freedom to spend during political elections, they will be able to steer public discourse and—perhaps more distressingly—convince politicians to work in their favor or else, a point stressed by Obama. (It's true corporations still can't contribute directly to candidates, but don't underestimate the power of advertising and campaigning.) The result could be political platforms even more influenced by corrupt interests and money, and even less tied to what's right for the people.
 
The decision may also give an unfair advantage to the GOP in the political process. The Republican party's free market ideology traditionally protects the coffers of giant corporations much more so than the Democratic party. This is why Republican candidates have traditionally received more money from the PACs of American companies. Though the recent Democratic dominance has shifted this trend somewhat, a search through records between 1998 and 2008 in the finance and business sectors show the GOP receiving the lion’s share. Click here to search the database of the Center for Responsive Politics.
 
Symbolically, the timing of this decision could not be worse for the American people (not that there would ever be a good time, or that this is a reason in and of itself to oppose the decision). While the government has provided Wall Street with enough bailout money to dole out its multi-million dollar bonuses, average Americans are finding it hard to keep their jobs and homes. Now, our highest court has essentially given Corporate America more power to decide who should run the country, while taking a good amount of that power away from the Everyman.
 
It's a crushing blow that will likely contribute to the growing pool of political apathy among the American public. That's the last thing we need. And since YP Nation represents the future of voting in this country, it is especially important that we take a stand now against moves that taint a fair and democratic electoral process.
 
If you liked this piece on the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, take a look at this post on the climate change discussion.
 
(Photo of the "Contemplation of Justice" by James Earle Fraser)