Officers from Roosevelt Institute debate Supreme Court decision in context of presidential election
Editor's Note: Roosevelt Institute would like to invite students to a discussion of Citizens United v. FEC being held Tuesday at 7pm in HRH B110.
FOR
Before 2010, news corporations poured billions of dollars into resources and airtime for candidates and thus determined front-runners and pertinent issues in elections. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission assured people’s input into this skewed system by allowing 501(c)(1) and 501(c)(4) organizations political speech.
Corporations are portrayed as greedy multinational establishments concerned only with profit, but most affected by the ruling are associations of like-minded people with a common purpose. Large media corporations overwhelm the individual voice, but smaller non-media corporations contribute a channel for individuals to speak to fellow citizens. They can uncover the political platform of a candidate that is not highlighted by mainstream media. The Sierra Club can advocate a candidate with solutions for environmental issues, while Fox News may not broadcast his stance. Even the most issue-savvy voter must be informed on the candidate, and third-party corporations can be relied on to provide accurate information when it aligns with their goals.
Corporations have the right to political speech because individuals have the right to associate and speak with their fellow citizens, who have the right to listen.
The ruling still upholds transparency and limits on direct funding to candidates. The intent of the ruling was not to drown individual voices, but to offer a powerful instrument of free speech.
— Runjhun Bhatia, healthy policy chair, Roosevelt Institute
AGAINST
Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations have the right to fund their own projects that promote political campaigns. Their justifications were that corporations, which are legally defined as people, have First Amendment rights just as individuals do. This, however, deviates from the original intent of the term “person” in reference to a corporation.
Historically, owners were the only individuals tied to a business. As businesses grew in importance, the novel concept of a corporation allowed a business to outlive its owner and authorized certain other rights to ensure its longevity — leading to personhood.
Today, the literal corporate personification extends beyond the security of a business’s assets and longevity, which has serious repercussions. Studies show that the candidates who are featured most often in the media are likely to win an election simply because citizens are more familiar with them. With indirect corporate sponsorship, candidates can receive significantly more positive exposure and an unfair advantage.
The ruling propagates a political system where candidates are unofficially accountable to corporations rather than citizens. In order to maintain the integrity of the election process, the restrictions on corporate funding that existed before Citizens United v. FEC must return.
— Eeshwar Chandrasekar, vice president, Roosevelt Institute