Corporations make for Lousy People

For as long as there has been a United States, there has been a constitution bearing the three words "We the People."  Not content to merely write these words, its authors even wrote them in giant letters as if to signify their importance.  The Bill of Rights soon followed; it's first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech to those people.  However, even back then there was heated debate over what constituted a "person."  Compromises were struck to resolve these disagreements such as declaring slaves three-fifths of a person; so much for "all men are created equal" - itself an already unequal statement given its gender implications.  In terms of rights though, full voting citizenship was strictly reserved to the white, the male, and the property owning.  We've come a long way since then, but have we actually gone too for in the other direction?  Do we now grant undue rights to parties that are literally not human?

Citizens United is a conservative film-making nonprofit, yet their documentaries are not the reason history professors will be referencing them one-hundred years from now.  Rather they will be remembered for their monumental Supreme Court case against the Federal Election Commission (FEC); its 2010 decision drastically altering the American political landscape for the foreseeable future.  Prior to this verdict, large organizations such as unions and corporations were limited in the amount of money they could contribute to both specific candidates and issue advertising.  But by ruling that these caps violated the first amendment by restricting their right to free speech, we not only find that money now equals speech - but that corporations now equal people.

Conservatives and supporters of the ruling take the "abridging freedom of speech" language in the first amendment and apply it to large monied entities such as corporations, which are technically run by people - specifically people with a right to free speech.  They argue that it was unconstitutional for the FEC to prevent Citizens United from releasing a documentary that was critical of Hilary Clinton at the height of her primary campaign; that veritable muzzle infringing upon their freedom of speech.  Penning for the majority, Justice Scalia contented that supposed liberal groups such as the Sierra Club are also technically not individuals, yet there is precedent for them being grated first amendment protections nonetheless (National Review).  In other words, why draw a distinction between them and a corporation?  Supporters also raise the point that it is not the governments place to meddle in campaign finance; that if we remove all regulation, a la barriers to speech, well will all be freer for it.  The electorate has the capability to, and should be allowed to, decide matters for themselves the argument goes; as opposed to some parties being relegated to having only a partial voice.

Some parties do have only a partial voice all right, but it sure isn't corporations.  The fact that the actual individuals who work for these conglomerates (including their billionaire CEOs) can buy as large a slice of the political process as they want is bad enough.  But the idea that they can now use their bottomless corporate coffers on top of that is about as unjust as is humanly imaginable.  Far from leveling the playing field by giving everyone an unencumbered voice, it rather lets those with the most money (corporations) completely drown out all other voices.  How can a non-cooperate interest compete with the financial resources of a Fortune 500 company?  It simply can't, thus it may cause future disillusionment in the political process amongst all but the most affluent; a feeling of powerlessness that is extremely dangerous given how it can give way to nationwide apathy.  This lack of engagement and tuning-out only serves to give more power to those already at the top of the food chain.

GE has a larger gross domestic product (GDP) than all of New Zealand; Chevron's is bigger than the Czech Republic; Exxon Mobil's greater than Thailand and Wal-Mart's eclipses Norway (Business Insider).  Is it any wonder that a record four-billion dollars was spent on the the 2010 midterms? (US News & World Report)

In the wake of what it sure to be a heated presidential election in 2012, the prospects for even a modest reduction in corporate campaign influence is about as likely as a Gary Johnson/Buddy Roemer GOP ticket.