The First Amendment Guarantees the Citizens United Decision: The money at issue funds speech, not candidates
John Samples is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government.
Many people say the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United is harming American democracy. Is it? Everyone knows democracy means "government by the people." But what does that mean concretely?
The people should select those who govern. Each citizen should have an equal vote on who holds office. But it involves more than voting. Citizens need information to judge candidates. There is no shortage of people willing to inform voters if government respects freedom of speech, of the press, and of association. The First Amendment guarantees these freedoms. It is a vital part of democracy.
Until last January, Congress prohibited corporations (including labor unions and some advocacy groups) from funding speech advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court voided this ban on First Amendment grounds. These organizations may now spend freely on political speech.
Citizens United has critics.
Incumbents fear new speakers will lead to electoral defeats. Other critics believe the First Amendment applies only to "natural" persons and not to legal individuals like corporations.
The Constitution says otherwise.
The Constitution indicates when a right or opportunity is limited to citizens or persons. The 15th Amendment protects the right "of citizens" to vote and defends against racial discrimination. The privileges and immunities of citizens are protected elsewhere as well. Only citizens are eligible for the presidency. The Constitution also mentions "persons" in several places. The First Amendment says only that Congress "shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." It does not say "the freedom of speech of citizens." The speech, not the speaker, is important, and it cannot be denied that Congress prohibited speech prior to Citizens United. Others say businesses will dominate debate.
Democracy, they assert, means everyone should have an equal say during elections. We do not know the future, but we have some evidence from the past. In 2002, when corporations and labor unions could contribute soft money to the parties, such donations were evenly split.
There is a deeper question here.
Does maintaining equal voice in a democracy justify limiting the speech of those who say "too much"? The Supreme Court in 1976 said such rationales for restricting speech were "wholly foreign to the First Amendment." Why? To attain equality of speech, government would have to limit those who spoke too much. Equal speech could not be free. The media and its freedom of the press would not be exempt from these limits. The New York Times and Fox News enjoy more speech than average Americans. Fortunately for media corporations, Citizens United recognized that our Constitution favors freedom over equality of speech.
Critics argue that newly freed corporate spending will corrupt the legislature by buying favors for the few at a cost to most voters. Courts have allowed Congress to regulate contributions to prevent such corruption. But Citizens United did not involve contributions to candidates or parties. The money at issue funds speech, not candidates. The question of corruption is not relevant.
Government by the people requires an equal vote and the freedom to speak and associate. Democracy also requires toleration of unpopular speech. When government and citizens fall short of those ideals, the courts should act. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court fulfilled that obligation.
Read why Citizens United is hurting democracy, by Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school.
Available at Amazon.com:
Read the latest political news.
- Eliminating Poverty: Lesson From Childhood
- Wall Street Had a Meltdown, and All We Got (Besides the Bill) Was an Interminable Argument
- Changing Our Tune to Natural Gas
- Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision Will Warp Policymaking
- Citizens United Decision: Money at Issue Funds Speech Not Candidates
- Education and Wealth: Strongest Predictors of a Long Life
- 'Citizen Journalism' Fad is Not Journalism
- Life's Little Lows Big Part of Going to High School
- Happiness is a Matter of Perspective
- Binge Drinking Numbers Rising
- The Republicans' Bizarre Attacks on Elites
- Joe Klein and Diane Sawyer Tour the Real Reality
- Troubled Times: When Mark Zuckerberg's Generosity Is Not Good Enough
- Why on Earth Does America Want a Stronger Chinese Currency?
- A Nation of Peasants?
- Public Sector Workers Are the New Privileged Elite Class
- Raising Retirement Age Will Help Save Social Security
- Cutting Benefits Isn't the Way to Save Social Security
- How the New Consumer Bureau Will Help You
- Setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- The Truth Behind UFO Sightings and the U.S. Air Force
- American Dream of Home Ownership Has Become a Nightmare
- 5 Traits of the New American Consumer
- Stoned on Righteousness
- Frank Assessment of Teacher Performance Not Pleasant but Useful
- Large-Spirited America
- America: A Labor of Love
- America: Love's Labor Lost
- What We Need to Do to Save America's Middle Class
- Out of the Media Muck an Idiot Emerges
- Dilemma of the Open Megaphone
- Let's Keep Our Enemies Straight
- Can the CIA Put a U.S.-Born al Qaeda Figure on its 'Kill List'?
- A Christian Voice Argues for Banning Nuclear Weapons
- Will New York's Mosque Protests Aid Terrorist Recruiters?
- Repealing 14th Amendment Would Not Fix Immigration System
- 14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens
- Immigration Reform Requires More Than Getting Tough or Feeling Good
- Defending a New Domain: The Pentagon's Cyberstrategy
- Before Katrina, There Was New York's 1896 Heat Wave
- EPA Surrenders to NRA on Gun Control Issue
- Rare Sighting: Common Sense from the Bench
- Is the Great Mosque Debate Making Us Stupid?
- Ground Zero Mosque Madness
- Ground Zero Mosque: Islamophobia? Not Really
- Gingrich and Palin: Twin Towers of Intolerance
- Detroit's Agony, America's Choice
- Iraq: U.S. Combat Troops' Departure Leaves Uncertainty in its Wake
- Corporate Rotten Eggs
- Strengthening the Political - Military Relationship
- A New Plan For Nuclear Postures
- Why the National Security Establishment Is Outdated
- Protecting the Pentagon Budget
- Approving the New START Treaty Keeps America Safe
- The New START Treaty Weakens U.S. National Security
- 'Ground Zero Mosque' Controversy Shows America's New Nativism
- Ground Zero Mosque Presidential Paradox
- Lack of Foresight Let 'Ground Zero Mosque' Controversy Balloon
- Republicans Hit Obama for Ground Zero Mosque Comments
- Obama's Ground Zero Mosque Mess
- The Sum of Our Parts
- The End of Books
- Steven Slater Airline Meltdown Hardly a Surprise
- Conversation on Race? We're Not Ready
- Everyone a Bigot?
- Let's Preserve Freedom at Ground Zero
- 10 Things You Didn't Know About Social Security
- Illogical Immigration
- Constitutional Amendments and Citizenship Rights
- Iran - The Next War
- How to Maximize Your Social Security Benefits
- How Working Longer Helps Build Retirement Security
- Social Security Inflation Adjustment Debate
- 21 Ways to Make Extra Money in Retirement
- Will You Run Out of Money Before You Run Out of Years?
- The Economy's Lasting Impact on Your Retirement
- Unconventional Retirement Investing Strategies
- Another Retirement Challenge for Women: Income Gender Gap
- 15 Ways to Tell if You Are Ready to Retire
- Investing Your Social Security Check? Consider These Factors
- Alternatives to Traditional Retirement
- 10 Uncommon Sources of Income in Retirement
- Sizing Up Your Retirement Nest Egg Needs
- Biggest Sources of Retirement Income
- Assembling a Sturdy Retirement Portfolio
- Retirement Savings Strategies for Late Starters
- 7 Reasons to Downsize in Retirement
- How to Tell if You Are Saving Enough for Retirement
Citizens United Decision: Money at Issue Funds Speech Not Candidates
(c) 2010 U.S. News & World Report