Supreme Court rules: Are corporations really people?

Supreme Court rules:  Are corporations really people?

I was having a discussion with my family regarding some of the Supreme Court rulings.  The Citizen’s United Organization came up and we talked about the background and even listened to a few of Steven Colbert’s monologs. I did a bunch of research including the NPR website. This topic has been in the newspaper, on television and talk radio.  

The background to the ruling was fascinating.  Back in 1886 there was a matter brought before the Supreme Court called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.  It dealt with the taxation of railroad properties. During the proceedings a court reporter made a headnote regarding protections to corporations as well as natural persons.  The headnote was added to the law and the constitutional protections were granted.  Essentially, this opened the door for corporations to be treated as people.  This seems fallacious. Corporations are not individual and should not be allowed the same rights.  Yet under this law they get the benefits of being individual but are exempt from punishment.   The fact that the headnote the court reporter added to the law wasn’t even part of the original bill is noteworthy. 

In 2008, 122 years later, an organization called the Citizen’s United was involved with a dispute regarding a film about Hillary Clinton.  The film was scheduled to air just prior to the primary elections.  There was a law suit filed and ultimately the decision was made allowing the Citizens United the freedom of speech.  The ruling includes corporations being allowed to  make campaign contributions.  Much like the 1886 ruling, corporations were given the same rights as individuals.  It has now become acceptable for them to funnel billions of dollars for their favorite candidate. It seems that lobbying has taken on a whole new mantra.

Corporations are allowed to spend unlimited funds on ads and other political tools.  With this birthed the political action committees or PAC’s.  Much controversy has come in their wake.  The campaign contributions have increased  dramatically, these groups spent more than $600 million in the 2012 election cycle.  There are no limits on amounts that can be spent.  In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

Presently there is new attention to the bill related to  Citizen’s United Organization. Senator Tom Udall has introduced an amendment authorizing Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.  I feel like this is also fallacious.  Instead of confining the amendment to not allow corporations to donate, the senator is asking to set limits on what the candidates can spend.  The proposed amendment grants Congress and the states the power to implement and enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation, and to distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. This is cogent.  Distinguishing between corporations and people has needed clarification since 1886.

There are 42 Senators who don't want the amendment to pass. They claim that the increasing sums of money from big donors to finance elections is mere free speech, which means that billionaires and multinational corporations deserve more influence and access to set the political agenda than the teacher, the barista, or the hairdresser. The vast majority of Americans, 73 percent in the most recent poll, - disagree and support a constitutional amendment.

The need for free speech is cogent.  The means for politicians to be bought through campaign funds needs to be stopped.  The First Amendment is something that will be spoken about and debated for many years to come.