Bring Back Teddy Roosevelt

The Supreme Court recently voted 5-4 in favor of giving corporations and unions freedom to run campaign ads directly supporting candidates for public office. The reasoning behind the decision is that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech extends to corporations and unions, meaning they should be able to use their resources at will to support their politician of choice. However, we believe that this decision is a blow to democracy, as the voice of corporations will continue to become unfairly loud in the political realm, drowning out the voices of individual citizens.

We believe that the intent of the First Amendment is to protect everyday citizens, not corporations or unions. While free speech is integral to our democracy, this decision permits corporations and unions to use the media as a battleground for their own interests. “May the best man win” may as well read, “May the organization with the most money to give to their man win.” Smaller voices not linked to power hitters will likely be muted, and there will be a disproportionate effect on minor political issues where special interests can easily dominate. The power of name-brand loyalty and corporate marketing skills in the American media should not be underestimated when it comes to influencing elections.

Furthermore, there are huge potential conflicts of interest, as corporations and unions can use their financial power as leverage to influence votes. When unions and corporations campaign for judges, the impartiality of the legal system will be no more than a distant memory.

Moreover, this decision underscores the need for major campaign finance reform, perhaps in the form of a constitutional amendment. Without even the slightest of ceilings on corporate and union spending, elections could well turn into auctions—with televisions as auctioneers, corporations and unions as bidders, homes as arenas, and American voters as the prize. Although the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 still stands in certain respects, such that corporations and unions cannot finance candidates directly without limit, this decision could transform elections as we know them.

Now, the best way to cope with the potential ramifications is to mandate more transparency. If there is to be no ceiling on spending, then voters should claim the right to know which organizations are giving the most money and have the biggest influence. Transparency can grow through more widespread publishing of all groups who donate, forcing those who donate above a certain threshold to announce it in commercials. Just as voters have the right to know which groups have lobbyists in Congress, they should have the right to know who is indirectly financing candidates and to what degree.

This decision is a red flag not only for campaign finance laws but also for the Supreme Court itself. It is one of a growing number of decisions that overlook individual rights in favor of corporations. In 2007, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision to award Lilly Ledbetter discrimination compensation because she filed her claims outside the 180-day statutory period. Apparently timeliness mattered more than the fact that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, her employer of nearly 20 years, had been paying her less than every one of her male colleagues. Additionally, in 2008 the Supreme Court voted to reduce the amount Exxon Mobil had to pay for an oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million, covering the cost of the economic losses while disregarding thousands of Alaskans whose livelihoods were destroyed by 11 million pounds of oil. After this most recent decision, we hope that the tide of the Supreme Court’s decisions can be turned before individual rights are completely lost in a sea of corporate interests.