Why Corporations Shouldn't Play in Elections

The Supreme Court held a specially scheduled oral argument Wednesday to decide whether to overturn a century of laws prohibiting corporations from using their treasury funds to influence federal elections. Judging from the justices' questions and the tenor of the argument, this once-unthinkable outcome seems increasingly likely.

The case--Citizens United v. FEC--has received rapt attention among legal experts, but not nearly as much as it deserves from the general public.

At stake is the basic principle of whether the size of one's wallet should determine the strength of her voice in our democracy.

Many have written about the potentially catastrophic impact of corporate contributions on our political process. See, here and here for example. Others have argued persuasively that overruling decades of solid, settled precedent makes a mockery of Chief Justice Roberts' claims of "judicial restraint" during his confirmation hearings (here).

I'd like to focus on why it is important to prevent corporations from playing in elections in the first place--and, for that matter, why we need campaign finance laws at all.

In the United States, we've chosen representative democracy as our political system and (moderated) capitalism as our economic system. Whereas communism and fascism attempt to merge politics and economics into a coherent whole, we have two systems that fit fairly well together, but are distinct. Think of the political and economic as two spheres or arenas we must navigate.

The question at stake with campaign finance law is, "How important is it to keep the economic and political spheres separate and distinct?" And, the answer is, "Very important, if we are to hold true to our core values as Americans."

Critically, we hold different values dear in each of these two arenas. In the political sphere, equality is a paramount value. Regardless of our partisan political affiliations, we all subscribe to the concept of one person, one vote; we all believe it critical that we come to the political table as equals.

Not so in the economic sphere. Much domestic political wrangling occurs over how to divide the economic pie, but few (if any) prominent voices argue for complete equality. We have decided to accept a certain amount of economic inequality in service of competing values such as efficiency and proper incentives.

In sum, our twin commitments to democracy and capitalism leave most of us with the general sense that every citizen has an equal right to participate in political life, but not necessarily the right to possess an equal number of widgets or dollars.

And, here's the key point: maintaining equality in one sphere but not another requires a meaningful separation of the spheres. Laws that regulate the role of big money in politics are the firewalls that prevent the perhaps warranted inequalities in the economic sphere from becoming unwarranted disparities in the political arena.

Allowing huge corporations or wealthy tycoons to purchase political outcomes makes a mockery of the principle behind one person, one vote.

And, it sets off a vicious cycle that undermines the moral legitimacy of both politics and economics in our society. Giving the wealthy a greater voice than average citizens corrupts the process of political decision-making. This, in turn, calls into question the legitimacy of our economic arrangements, since economic conditions are set or sanctioned in the political arena (where we decide tax policy, regulations, etc.). This, finally, makes the influence of economics on politics all the worse--completing the cycle.

We need laws that prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from translating legitimate economic power into unwarranted political influence. The Congress understood this as early as 1907; the people understand it now; only the Supreme Court seems fuzzy on the concept.

Comments

[seanparnell]

Not so fast.

If you want to separate the economic and political spheres, you need to separate them - that means the political sphere cannot attempt to regulate the economic sphere. Somehow, I doubt that's what many here are interested in (and total separation is impossible for even a libertarian to accept - contracts must be enforced, property rights protected, etc).

Indeed, the Supreme Court has already ruled that corporations will have the right to speak their mind in politics, to advance and defend their interests in the political process. In United States v. Carolene Products, the court ruled that economic interests would be protected in the “political processes, which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation.” More here: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/docLib/20090731_CCP08205cubrief.pdf

Also, Austin directly contradicts the older Buckley v. Valeo decision. So in overturning Austin, Roberts wouldn't be making "a mockery of Chief Justice Roberts' claims of "judicial restraint" during his confirmation hearings," instead it would be demonstrating his adherence to two older, more significant precedents.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

[LeftRight]

WRONG! The political sphere creates the circumstances where the economic sphere operates, and therefore has both a right and a responsibility to regulate the economic sphere!

[wiseapple]

Each corporation is made up of many individuals. Who designates which candidate gets the corporate donation. If some individuals of the corporation don't want the money going to that candidate aren't their rights being infringed upon? If the corporation exercises its right to political donation wouldn't everyone in that corporation have to be in unanimous consent to make that donation? If such a scenario did exist, wouldn't there probably have been some hiring discrimination against persons of the opposing political persuasion? Corporations shouldn't be able to influnce political issues unless 100% of the individuals in the corporation agree to that contribution. Doesn't that sound right?

[worldlyhick]

Politicians cater too much to the corporate interests as it is now. The concept of the corporation needs to be done away with.

The only voices to be heard in the political arena needs to be that of the individual people.

No more campaign contributions from anyone to anyone.

But now I am fantasizing.

[LeftRight]

I'm still wondering why it's been for the last century and a half or so that corporations are considered to be persons, when there wasn't a court decision regarding the matter, nor was there any legislative action regarding it.

The fact of the matter is that corporations should be persons insofar as owning property and signing contracts, but not as regards "rights"!!!

[TheIndependenceParty]

Exactly correct and well stated. Corporate Personhood is a fallacy, ... It should long ago have been overturned in our courts, and specifically refuted in law. Here is some interesting background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[Billy Hell]

It’s great to see someone keeping this issue alive here Adam. It amazes me so few people give reports on this such little attention.

Sometimes I think people everywhere are in denial about what system of government they've got. It's blatantly clear and thrust right under our noses by corporates and elected government officials that are supposed to represent the voters...human beings NOT corporations. Instead, from state level and right through the House, Senate and White House, the peoples representatives look after the best interests of the major special interest groups and business entities that fund their campaign. It's so commonly practiced, it's become accepted and is not even regarded as corrupt.

This is not democracy. The same applies to governments the world over, where even if there is not an obvious “lobby system”, ways equally unethical are found to influence policy.

Until there are means put in place for the direct accountability of elected officials to voters and direct consultation of voters on all policy issues, voters actually have no input into government. The four yearly carnival of elections (five in some countries), are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

[oldgeek1]

Very simply, Corporations do not have the right to vote!

If in context, the constitution protects the right of citizens and corporations are not.

If we want to argue matters differently then corporations should be able to run for office.