There has been talk about over-turning the Citizens United decision made by the Supreme Court. The representative tagline is “get money out of politics” or “corporations are not people”.

Opponents describe the case as a decision to grant corporations status as a “person” and open flood gates to corporate money in politics. David Kairys of Slate summed up opposition: “Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People”. Documentaries and blog posts eloquently speak about corruption and demand an Amendment to the Constitution to reverse the decision.

Like many well-meaning but ill-conceived laws, this all sounds sensible. However, a more careful review of the actual case is in order.

Citizens United is a Supreme Court decision made on appeal of a case in which the Federal Election Commission banned Citizens United from broadcasting a program called Hillary: The Movie critical of then candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Facts should be noted:
– The subject of the Citizens United case was not ‘money in politics’ but was directly related to the rights of a group (in this case Citizens United) to speak about politics.

– McCain Feingold / Bipartisan Campaign Reform law sought to censor political statements, the manner and time in which they could be made.

– McCain/ Feingold limited what independent groups could say about politicians in the time leading up to an election.

– The US Government used McCain / Feingold as justification and BANNED the film and related advertisements.

– The Supreme Court ruled censorship was a violation of the First Amendment and stated that individuals should be allowed to form groups to speak their political views.

– The definition of “corporations” includes for-profit and non-profits, unions and virtually all other groups.

– Citizens United is a 501(c)4 Not for Profit – a corporation exactly like Greenpeace, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), National Right to Life Committee, Human Rights Campaign, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), MoveOn.org and thousands of others.

– The decision did NOT say “corporations are people”.

– The decision stated that people have the right to form groups and have the right to political speech without government censorship and that Americans have the right to hear that message.

– The court did NOT say that “foreign corporations can spend to influence elections” it was ALREADY illegal for foreign corporations to spend on US elections and the Supreme Court specifically said that it was not changing or addressing this in the decision.

– Disclosure of political advertisement spending is required by law and this did not change with the decision, one justice noted that this enables Americans to judge for themselves the nature of a message based on its funding.

Those against the decision are saying that US Government authorities should indeed ban books, websites and films. If a group of Occupiers or other Americans produce a film critical of a radical Presidential candidate before the election it would be banned if not for this decision. Put partisan rhetoric aside and boil it down to the root facts in case documents: a political film that was BANNED by authorities, our highest court ruled that this was a violation of our rights. Period.
Do we really want to go down a road, anything approaching a road, where any type of film, blog or other form of speech is blocked on threat of imprisonment? The next censored film, book or website could be by Occupiers, by Michael Moore or you or me. Getting “evil corporations” (or “good” corporations, or non-profits, or advocacy groups or unions) out of politics might be great but limiting speech is not the answer. Like Rev, Phelps, racists and bigots, it is a price we pay for freedom of speech.

In 2004 MoveOn.org invited me to appear on a nationally televised ad campaign in which I said that it was hard to admit when our President does wrong but Iraq was wrong and I do not support President Bush. Now whether you love or hate President Bush: should I have been allowed to speak my mind? What if my speech was banned by the authorities and I chose to violate their order and publish it on my blog anyway. Would they send a SWAT team to my home to drag me away? Would I be in Federal prison today because I spoke against the actions of our President?

Fears of unlimited free speech include fear that companies will buy elections or rush in at the last minute to swing an election with a spending spree. Keep in mind: currently most of the biggest corporate spenders are groups like unions and MoveOn.org, which rely on individual donations. Do unions, advocacy groups and others influence elections? Sure. But by censoring what they say we are essentially saying “we don’t trust the people to make a decision, correctly, we’d rather trust the Government to decide who can say what and who can listen”. A new Constitutional Amendment would do just that, it would amend the First Amendment. We would essentially say “freedom of speech….except for groups and certain times and places.”

The problem with giving more power to Government is that, while CEOs of Fortune 100 companies or MoveOn or Unions could perhaps be evil, so could politicians. The difference is that the politicians have an army of Lt John Pikes to mace us, imprison us and take our property and freedom. Free speech is our First Amendment for a reason. It has its drawbacks but they are far outweighed by the benefits. Let’s have faith in Americans to decide what they want to say and hear. We can never, ever back-pedal from this right. Those who seek to overturn Citizens seek to limit our speech and allow Govt authorities to ban books, websites and films.

That’s not freedom, that’s not American, that’s not democracy and that is not even close to the type of action we need to repair our broken system. Want corporations to stop using money to influence politics? Reduce government size to the point that politicians have nothing to offer that corporations would want.

By Bruce Fenton

Subscribe, friend and follow me
www.facebook.com/brucefenton