SUBRAMANIAN: In defense of Citizens United
This year's election is undoubtedly looming over everyone. With the primaries effectively finished now that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and former President Donald J. Trump have secured their respective party nominations, it is safe to say that this will be an incredibly bumpy process where many see little satisfaction in this political rematch.
The 2024 election is seemingly on track to be incredibly expensive, with the total price tag estimated to be more than $10 billion, an amount larger than the gross domestic product of countries like Montenegro, Kyrgyzstan and Fiji.
This has brought up concerns that democracy in the U.S. is eroding as big corporations and special interests take hold of our elections. The primary target for these progressives is the 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Many people are aware of the results of the case, but it is crucial to consider the case itself. In January 2008, the conservative nonprofit organization Citizens United wanted to release a documentary called "Hillary: The Movie," showing why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would make a bad president. Citizens United then saw themselves charged by the FEC with violating the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).
One of the major questions this case raised was whether these organizations, ranging from nonprofits to corporations, should have to deal with the government's limitations on disseminating information.
With these limits, the BCRA effectively creates a chilling effect on free speech. If an organization wanted to distribute information regarding their thoughts on a candidate but wanted to avoid the government cracking down on them, they would be less likely to publish said information. The impact of this is that if voters need more information to make an informed decision, their access should not be limited.
What makes this worse is that the organizations that would benefit from these government regulations on speech are existing, large organizations that have the power to have teams of lawyers and lobbyists to challenge bad FEC decisions. On the other hand, smaller companies that do not have these resources are left crushed under the thumb of the FEC.
The two other big questions that usually get tied to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling are whether money is speech and if organizations, like corporations, unions and nonprofits, have First Amendment rights.
Starting with the former question, it may seem strange to classify speech and money in the same category. After all, when people think of speech, money does not come to mind. At the same time, money is tied to many of the rights Americans hold near and dear to their hearts.
For example, if there were a law that limited the amount that someone could spend on manufacturing a firearm, many would probably say that it is a violation of the Second Amendment. Similarly, if the government banned someone from spending money on an attorney, this would spark outrage, with people calling this a violation of their Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights.
Nobody is saying that speech and money are one-to-one, but many of the rights held by Americans have financial aspects, so limiting the right to exercise money would limit the full use of other rights.
Regarding the other question about organizations having First Amendment rights, this is, by and large, a net positive. If these organizations can express their views unencumbered by the thumb of the government, more information can be spread.
To truly have a democracy, all groups should be able to engage in discourse. If limits start being imposed, then it creates a slippery slope. Will these limits justify restricting the press, which could be argued to have a large amount of power when it comes to disseminating information?
The voices that come from nonprofit advocacy groups, unions and corporations have their value and should be able to be consumed by those interested. For every Exxon Mobil and Lockheed Martin that can advocate for their issues, there are other organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations that can also advocate.
The result is that we now have more voices at the table.
Even more important is that none of the liberal justices who dissented from the majority opinion argued against corporate personhood or money being equivalent to speech. Thus, many constitutional claims that progressives lobby at Citizens United v. FEC do not hold up.
Some may dismiss these First Amendment arguments. After all, who cares about some nebulous understanding of free speech if corporations can plunder our democracy through their unlimited contributions?
Let us dig deeper. The fundamental question here is whether more money causes election victories. What does money mean for a candidate?
Most people would say it allows a candidate to flood the airways with ads and print many lawn signs everywhere. But that logic does not hold. When was the last time you saw a political ad and suddenly changed your political behavior?
Furthermore, many high-profile examples exist of the person with the most money losing the election. If money and advertisements were the only factor in an election, the U.S. would have had Hillary Clinton or Mike Bloomberg as president and former Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) as a senator.
Some might push back and argue that these were cherry-picked examples, but looking more broadly at an election, the fact is that the amount of spending done by a winner and a loser is largely the same.
There is no doubt that democracy in the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction. There are many ways to fix this democracy, such as ending winner-take-all systems, ending gerrymandering and expanding the size of the U.S. House of Representatives. But campaign finance is not the issue and the more time spent on this, the less time gets spent on other democratic reforms.
But hey, whadda I know?
Kiran Subramanian is a senior in the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in economics and political science. His column, "Whadda I Know," runs on alternate Tuesdays.
Columns, cartoons, letters and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Letters to the editor must be between 350 and 600 words. Commentaries must be between 600 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com and eic@dailytargum.com to be considered for publication.
