So have any of you, in the course of writing all this blather—all of which is at least three times longer than it should be—actually read the case? Or do you think that at some point standards in law school are going to be reduced to a level at which talking about cases you haven't read ceases to be a firing offense?

Giving legal opinions off the top of your head is professionally unacceptable. Each of you is hereby assigned to read Citizens United, in which you are interested, and to write not more than 100 intelligent words about it to replace the discussion presently here.

Sam,

Two comments. First, whether or not this is a "legislation-worthy problem," my main goal was merely articulating what I consider to be a significant and necessary consequence of the ruling. If we're going to fully consider the implications of the decision - I think that was Nate's original goal - we should consider the indirect implications of the ruling as well.

Just the same, though, you bring up a good point - one that definitely deserves some discussion.

You mention paternalistic implications of controlling corporate campaign finance. I think that using the term paternalism here is a bit of an unfair rhetorical device if you're using it as I understand you to be using it. I think of paternalism as being when an entity with power restricts or forces the behavior of an entity with less power, usually with the justification that the restriction or force is for the lesser power’s best interest. By "paternalistic implications” I'm assuming, then, that you mean you're objecting to the notion that the government can restrict how a corporation spends money to advertise for political candidates, thus making a decision about how a corporation spends its money and therefore how it exercises its "speech."

I might argue, however, that another interpretation of what the government is doing through the now-defunct attempts to limit corporate campaign finance is preventing corporations from acting in a paternalistic way themselves towards the public. By using their vast treasuries to saturate the market with direct candidate supporting advertising, corporations could be said to be the ones who are truly restricting the liberty of choice on behalf of the people. The government isn’t the only body that can exert its greater power over a mass of those with less power, is it?

I also have a few other smaller comments to make here. You mentioned that political contributions are all open and documented, and thus that anyone can find out what causes companies support. But isn't this still a problem, because the "company supporting something" is itself a legal fiction? The company doesn't support anything - it's not a person. Ford does not prefer Obama to McCain? or the other way around. The board of directors might, but that's even more uncertainty for voters to consider when they're trying to decide how to spend their money because the corporation's directors will change. Hope you didn't forget to read the Economist before you went to the dealership today. Didn't you hear? Ford's chief operating officer was replaced this morning. The new guy loves universal health care, and will now tip the board of directors towards advertising for the Democratic candidate this time around. Too bad you're happy with your insurance and just bought that Taurus, giving the board another $3500 to fund TV commercials - should have done your homework.

Now, Sam, I’m really not doing your point justice, and for that I apologize. I’m overstating my point for effect. But let’s look at campaign financing using the functional approach – what does this decision DO for elections? It would be tough to dispute that money wins elections, and now small groups of actors in control of corporate treasuries can flood much more money into the process, meaning that these small groups have more sway. I think we’d agree with this, but where I suppose we disagree is what to do from that point. You say preventing this flow is paternalistic. I say that preventing it makes the already filthy political process at least at little cleaner by not allowing corporations and unions as much ability to effect elections.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with the Court’s decision from a doctrinal point of view. If you force me to operate with the premises that corporations are people and that money is speech, then I don’t see how you can restrict a corporation’s ability to directly spend money on campaign ads. But if I sweep the legal fiction aside and think about the direct ramifications of the ruling, then I can’t stand behind it for the reasons I’ve already mentioned.

-- AndrewCascini - 03 Feb 2010

My initial response to the comments that have been posted is to note that I would not be in favor of this ruling if it just extended to labor unions. They, like corporations, are not people and I don't believe the First Amendment extends to them. However, I think the labor union question is something that people are using as a way of attacking the positions of individuals who disagree with the decision, while missing what I see as the essence of the issue. Labor unions are being raised up as a counterweight to corporations because people assume that they will take opposite positions, and will therefore cancel each other's money out. Aside from the obvious point that labor unions have a tiny percentage of the money that corporations do, it fails to address my main concern.

For me, this decision is not about corporations swinging elections towards Republicans or unions swinging them towards Democrats. It's about more money entering an already corrupt political system. It's about the dilusion of our democracy to an unacceptable point. Democracy is about people being able to contribute equally to a decision to elect candidates, and while this decision obviously doesn't change the principle of "one person, one vote," it is going to allow wealthy individuals, corporations, unions and other organizations to influence the electorate in ways that others cannot.

Things are what they do, not what they say they are. This decision will bring even more money and undue influence into our electoral system. It is rationalized as a victory for free speech, but do not deny that it will change politics in America. Our system is already deeply flawed, but I cannot see how this decision will do anything but make the problems even larger.

I've got to run off to class, so consider this a work in progress as I'd like to get back to it tonight.

Andrew, I appreciate your response, but on a fundamental level I really do not see how the issue you raise is a legislation-worthy problem. Some adults will fail to do their due diligence and will give money to companies that support causes they disagree with. Therefore Congress needs to step in and protect them from themselves?

-- SamHershey - 03 Feb 2010

Just to expand a little on what I just wrote, what I find troubling about your argument are its paternalistic implications. Remember that political contributions are all open and documented. Anyone can find out what causes companies support. Also keep in mind that boycotts occur all the time against companies that take controversial positions. (Note the ongoing boycott against Whole Foods since its CEO openly opposed universal health care.) It is true that some people will fail to do their homework and will embarrass themselves by supporting their opponents. But how much can those people claim really to care if they didn't even take the time to do their due diligence? And is it really the government's role to save us from embarrassment and frustration?

-- SamHershey - 03 Feb 2010

The worry that I have about the decision isn't so much the direct effect that most people here are discussing - that is, the fact that corporations are now free to endorse candidates through the media because, the majority tells us, money is speech. That may or may not have disastrous policy implications, but there's a secondary effect as well: the products that we buy from these corporations now have inherently political implications, and we can't know the ramifications of these implications at the time that we spend money.

Consider this - you're an American choosing which car to buy. Whereas before you might have made your decision based on the safety rating of each vehicle or perhaps because of the interior or the innovative ergonomic technology, now you're forced to consider the ramifications that your purchase will have on the discretion of the car company that you choose to buy from to influence elections. I really like the Focus, but I don't have health insurance. Will Ford spend money endorsing a candidate who opposes health care reform?

I like to think that I make my consumer decisions rationally - that is, by weighing the positive effects against the negative effects the product will inflict on my life and then measuring the sum of that effect against the money I'll have to spend in order to buy it. Now, though, there's a shrouded, mysterious political element to my choice that I am aware exists but that I cannot reliably predict.

You might argue that this has always been the case. After all, individuals have always been able to donate to political campaigns, and the CEO of Ford has always had an increased ability to donate whenever I decide to sign for that Focus because a portion of the money that I pay for that car goes to him. However I might argue that while the effect may not be new, this inherently political character towards product purchasing has now been greatly magnified.

Of course, you might make the counter-argument that this could lead to the democratization of corporations. If consumers began to make choices on which product to buy based upon the election spending that the company would make, corporations might, you could argue, begin to spend only in ways that their consumer base would support. I would argue, however, that this is unlikely. Most consumers won't know about the ability of corporations to make political advertisements with the money given to the corporation from the consumer, and many consumers who do will probably not change their behavior substantially.

-- AndrewCascini - 03 Feb 2010