Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Keep corporate money out of our elections

TODAY, THE Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The litigants will address whether the court should overturn long-standing federal laws prohibiting corporations from making campaign contributions. At stake are not just federal campaign finance limits, but also Pennsylvania's own election laws.

TODAY, THE Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The litigants will address whether the court should overturn long-standing federal laws prohibiting corporations from making campaign contributions. At stake are not just federal campaign finance limits, but also Pennsylvania's own election laws.

The case before the court arises from the distribution before the 2008 primary season of the film "Hillary: The Movie." Citizens United, creator of the film, sought to enjoin the enforcement of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, one of several statutes that prevent the use of corporate funds to influence a federal election. Led by Republican appointees, the Supreme Court may very well strike down the law, including the corporate restriction.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and the other Republican appointees are proponents of originalism. They argue that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. But the Founders did not vest corporations with rights under the Constitution. Therein lies the hypocrisy of conservative judicial ideology.

The drafters of the Constitution perceived the unchecked power of corporations to be a danger to American democracy. Expressing his strong distrust of corporate power, Thomas Jefferson stated his hope to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Sharing Jefferson's disdain, James Madison described corporations as "at best a necessary evil only."

At the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted, corporations were subject to substantial restraints. State laws limited the duration of their existence, the purposes for incorporation and even the amount of their capitalization. Had the intent of the Founding Fathers been followed, no corporation would have ever become "too big to fail."

ALREADY, THE SIZE and wealth of corporations dwarf the ability of individuals to influence their elected representatives. During the current health-care debate, corporations have spent hundreds of millions on advertising to influence public opinion. If the so-called "originalists" confer upon corporations the full rights of individuals, corporations will also be able to finance the campaigns of their preferred politicians.

At the federal level, reforms like the Employee Free Choice Act would never be possible. Locally, the corporate money that led to Philadelphia's pay-to-play scandals would flood City Hall.

The fact that the Supreme Court is even considering this action demonstrates how little our country currently resembles Abraham Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Rather than extending corporate rights, we should consider greater limits on the influence of corporations in our political processes. Considering our current economic condition, perhaps we would be better off if we acted in accord with the Founders' intent.

DeWitt Brown is a lawyer and chairman of the Southeastern Pennsylvania chapter of Americans for Democratic Action.