Feb 12, 2010
One of the most astounding passages in the Supreme Court's
mind-boggling decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission -- the January decision holding that corporations have a
First Amendment right to spend as much as they choose from their
treasuries to support or oppose candidates for elected office -- is
this:
"[T]he Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it
identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak
from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the
disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to
establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. ... The
First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow
from each."
This ode to the First Amendment is inspiring, until you recognize that the "disadvantaged class" reference is to corporations.
When it comes to speech protections, there are surely many rational
ways to distinguish corporations from real, live persons. One is that
corporations are not real, live persons! Another is that for-profit
corporations exist for the purpose of making money, and that this
monomaniacal focus distinguishes them in very important ways from
humans, who care not only about making money, but building community,
expressing themselves, fairness, equality, justice, protecting future
generations, stewarding the planet and much more. And other
consequential difference, compounding these other points of difference,
is that large and even not-so-large corporations have a lot more money,
and can easily mobilize resources on a scale that vastly outdistances
anything that real people can do.
Thus the rather obvious conclusion that corporate money can distort
elections and the political process. This is hardly speculative: large
corporations dominated the political process even before Citizens
United, a fact widely understood. Eighty-five percent of people in the
United States believe big business has too much power in Washington. [1]
What may not be quite so obvious is how extraordinary are the resources
that corporations can mobilize as against what is now spent on
elections.
Consider these juxtapositions --
----
Total amount spent on federal elections in the 2008 election cycle: $5.285 billion [2]
Amount spent by Obama campaign in the 2008 election: $730 million [3]
Average amount raised by incumbent Members of the House of
Representatives in the 2008 election: $1.356 million (challengers:
$335,101) [4]
Average amount raised by incumbent Senators in the 2008 election: $8.741 million (challengers: $1,152,146) [5]
Exxon profits 2007-2008: $85 billion [6]
Top-selling drug, Lipitor, revenues, 2007-2008: $27 billion [7]
Goldman Sachs bonus and compensation expense for 2009: $16.2 billion [8]
Value of Lockheed's defense contracts in 2008: $15 billion [9]
The amount spent on cigarette advertising and promotion by the five
largest cigarette companies in the United States in 2006: $12.49
billion [10]
Microsoft cash on hand: $33.4 billion [11]
----
And these comparisons, from the states --
----
Amount spent on candidate races in California state elections, 2008: $225 million [12]
Revenues of the 97th largest corporation in California, Public Storage, 2008: $1.7 billion [13]
Amount spent on candidate races in Ohio state elections, 2008: $107 million [14]
Revenues of the 10th largest corporation in Ohio, Progressive Insurance, 2008: $12.8 billion [15]
Amount spent on candidate races in North Dakota state elections, 2008: $7.3 million [16]
Revenues of the largest corporation in North Dakota, 2008: $5 billion [17]
Amount spent on candidate races in Alabama state elections, 2008: $15.5 million [18]
Revenues of the second largest corporation in Alabama, Vulcan Materials, 2008: $3.6 billion [19]
Amount spent on candidate races in Nebraska state elections, 2008: $6.4 million [20]
Revenues of the 10th largest corporation in Nebraska, Public Storage, 2008: $1.9 billion [21]
Amount spent on candidate races in Rhode Island state elections, 2008: $7.2 million [22]
Revenues of the third largest corporation in Rhode Island, Hasbro, 2008: $4 billion [23]
----
These comparisons illustrate how easy it will be for one company, one
industry, or the corporate class overall, to dominate the electoral
discourse in the wake of Citizens United. We won't know how this plays
out, of course, until after it happens. Will Exxon alone decide to
spend, say, $500 million to oppose or support candidates? Perhaps not
-- but the company might, and it certainly could. The mere fact an
Exxon could spend that much, or more, will tilt the political process
even more in favor of big business. And it is a virtual certainty that
targeted corporate spending will escalate sharply in the wake of
decision.
Corporations do not establish their "worth" through political and
expressive speech, as the Court suggests, but through a different kind
of statement altogether -- the financial statement. That fact, combined
with their unparalleled treasuries, makes the Court's decision in
Citizens United a real and present danger to democracy. It must be
overturned.
Join the call for a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United
and restore the First Amendment and our democracy. Go to: www.dontgetrolled.org.
[1] www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_03_12.pdf
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php
[3] https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
[4] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/incumbs.php?cycle=2008
[5] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/incumbs.php?cycle=2008
[6] https://money.cnn.com/2009/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm and https://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22goldman.html
[9] https://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009.aspx
[10] https://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/08/tobacco.shtm
[11] https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
[12] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[13] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/CA.html
[14] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[15] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/CA.html
[16] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[17] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/ND.html
[18] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[19] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/AL.html
[20] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[21] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/NE.html
[22] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[23] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/RI.html
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Weissman
Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen. Weissman was formerly director of Essential Action, editor of Multinational Monitor, a magazine that tracks corporate actions worldwide, and a public interest attorney at the Center for Study of Responsive Law. He was a leader in organizing the 2000 IMF and World Bank protests in D.C. and helped make HIV drugs available to the developing world.
One of the most astounding passages in the Supreme Court's
mind-boggling decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission -- the January decision holding that corporations have a
First Amendment right to spend as much as they choose from their
treasuries to support or oppose candidates for elected office -- is
this:
"[T]he Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it
identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak
from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the
disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to
establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. ... The
First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow
from each."
This ode to the First Amendment is inspiring, until you recognize that the "disadvantaged class" reference is to corporations.
When it comes to speech protections, there are surely many rational
ways to distinguish corporations from real, live persons. One is that
corporations are not real, live persons! Another is that for-profit
corporations exist for the purpose of making money, and that this
monomaniacal focus distinguishes them in very important ways from
humans, who care not only about making money, but building community,
expressing themselves, fairness, equality, justice, protecting future
generations, stewarding the planet and much more. And other
consequential difference, compounding these other points of difference,
is that large and even not-so-large corporations have a lot more money,
and can easily mobilize resources on a scale that vastly outdistances
anything that real people can do.
Thus the rather obvious conclusion that corporate money can distort
elections and the political process. This is hardly speculative: large
corporations dominated the political process even before Citizens
United, a fact widely understood. Eighty-five percent of people in the
United States believe big business has too much power in Washington. [1]
What may not be quite so obvious is how extraordinary are the resources
that corporations can mobilize as against what is now spent on
elections.
Consider these juxtapositions --
----
Total amount spent on federal elections in the 2008 election cycle: $5.285 billion [2]
Amount spent by Obama campaign in the 2008 election: $730 million [3]
Average amount raised by incumbent Members of the House of
Representatives in the 2008 election: $1.356 million (challengers:
$335,101) [4]
Average amount raised by incumbent Senators in the 2008 election: $8.741 million (challengers: $1,152,146) [5]
Exxon profits 2007-2008: $85 billion [6]
Top-selling drug, Lipitor, revenues, 2007-2008: $27 billion [7]
Goldman Sachs bonus and compensation expense for 2009: $16.2 billion [8]
Value of Lockheed's defense contracts in 2008: $15 billion [9]
The amount spent on cigarette advertising and promotion by the five
largest cigarette companies in the United States in 2006: $12.49
billion [10]
Microsoft cash on hand: $33.4 billion [11]
----
And these comparisons, from the states --
----
Amount spent on candidate races in California state elections, 2008: $225 million [12]
Revenues of the 97th largest corporation in California, Public Storage, 2008: $1.7 billion [13]
Amount spent on candidate races in Ohio state elections, 2008: $107 million [14]
Revenues of the 10th largest corporation in Ohio, Progressive Insurance, 2008: $12.8 billion [15]
Amount spent on candidate races in North Dakota state elections, 2008: $7.3 million [16]
Revenues of the largest corporation in North Dakota, 2008: $5 billion [17]
Amount spent on candidate races in Alabama state elections, 2008: $15.5 million [18]
Revenues of the second largest corporation in Alabama, Vulcan Materials, 2008: $3.6 billion [19]
Amount spent on candidate races in Nebraska state elections, 2008: $6.4 million [20]
Revenues of the 10th largest corporation in Nebraska, Public Storage, 2008: $1.9 billion [21]
Amount spent on candidate races in Rhode Island state elections, 2008: $7.2 million [22]
Revenues of the third largest corporation in Rhode Island, Hasbro, 2008: $4 billion [23]
----
These comparisons illustrate how easy it will be for one company, one
industry, or the corporate class overall, to dominate the electoral
discourse in the wake of Citizens United. We won't know how this plays
out, of course, until after it happens. Will Exxon alone decide to
spend, say, $500 million to oppose or support candidates? Perhaps not
-- but the company might, and it certainly could. The mere fact an
Exxon could spend that much, or more, will tilt the political process
even more in favor of big business. And it is a virtual certainty that
targeted corporate spending will escalate sharply in the wake of
decision.
Corporations do not establish their "worth" through political and
expressive speech, as the Court suggests, but through a different kind
of statement altogether -- the financial statement. That fact, combined
with their unparalleled treasuries, makes the Court's decision in
Citizens United a real and present danger to democracy. It must be
overturned.
Join the call for a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United
and restore the First Amendment and our democracy. Go to: www.dontgetrolled.org.
[1] www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_03_12.pdf
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php
[3] https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
[4] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/incumbs.php?cycle=2008
[5] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/incumbs.php?cycle=2008
[6] https://money.cnn.com/2009/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm and https://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22goldman.html
[9] https://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009.aspx
[10] https://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/08/tobacco.shtm
[11] https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
[12] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[13] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/CA.html
[14] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[15] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/CA.html
[16] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[17] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/ND.html
[18] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[19] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/AL.html
[20] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[21] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/NE.html
[22] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[23] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/RI.html
Robert Weissman
Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen. Weissman was formerly director of Essential Action, editor of Multinational Monitor, a magazine that tracks corporate actions worldwide, and a public interest attorney at the Center for Study of Responsive Law. He was a leader in organizing the 2000 IMF and World Bank protests in D.C. and helped make HIV drugs available to the developing world.
One of the most astounding passages in the Supreme Court's
mind-boggling decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission -- the January decision holding that corporations have a
First Amendment right to spend as much as they choose from their
treasuries to support or oppose candidates for elected office -- is
this:
"[T]he Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it
identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak
from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the
disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to
establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. ... The
First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow
from each."
This ode to the First Amendment is inspiring, until you recognize that the "disadvantaged class" reference is to corporations.
When it comes to speech protections, there are surely many rational
ways to distinguish corporations from real, live persons. One is that
corporations are not real, live persons! Another is that for-profit
corporations exist for the purpose of making money, and that this
monomaniacal focus distinguishes them in very important ways from
humans, who care not only about making money, but building community,
expressing themselves, fairness, equality, justice, protecting future
generations, stewarding the planet and much more. And other
consequential difference, compounding these other points of difference,
is that large and even not-so-large corporations have a lot more money,
and can easily mobilize resources on a scale that vastly outdistances
anything that real people can do.
Thus the rather obvious conclusion that corporate money can distort
elections and the political process. This is hardly speculative: large
corporations dominated the political process even before Citizens
United, a fact widely understood. Eighty-five percent of people in the
United States believe big business has too much power in Washington. [1]
What may not be quite so obvious is how extraordinary are the resources
that corporations can mobilize as against what is now spent on
elections.
Consider these juxtapositions --
----
Total amount spent on federal elections in the 2008 election cycle: $5.285 billion [2]
Amount spent by Obama campaign in the 2008 election: $730 million [3]
Average amount raised by incumbent Members of the House of
Representatives in the 2008 election: $1.356 million (challengers:
$335,101) [4]
Average amount raised by incumbent Senators in the 2008 election: $8.741 million (challengers: $1,152,146) [5]
Exxon profits 2007-2008: $85 billion [6]
Top-selling drug, Lipitor, revenues, 2007-2008: $27 billion [7]
Goldman Sachs bonus and compensation expense for 2009: $16.2 billion [8]
Value of Lockheed's defense contracts in 2008: $15 billion [9]
The amount spent on cigarette advertising and promotion by the five
largest cigarette companies in the United States in 2006: $12.49
billion [10]
Microsoft cash on hand: $33.4 billion [11]
----
And these comparisons, from the states --
----
Amount spent on candidate races in California state elections, 2008: $225 million [12]
Revenues of the 97th largest corporation in California, Public Storage, 2008: $1.7 billion [13]
Amount spent on candidate races in Ohio state elections, 2008: $107 million [14]
Revenues of the 10th largest corporation in Ohio, Progressive Insurance, 2008: $12.8 billion [15]
Amount spent on candidate races in North Dakota state elections, 2008: $7.3 million [16]
Revenues of the largest corporation in North Dakota, 2008: $5 billion [17]
Amount spent on candidate races in Alabama state elections, 2008: $15.5 million [18]
Revenues of the second largest corporation in Alabama, Vulcan Materials, 2008: $3.6 billion [19]
Amount spent on candidate races in Nebraska state elections, 2008: $6.4 million [20]
Revenues of the 10th largest corporation in Nebraska, Public Storage, 2008: $1.9 billion [21]
Amount spent on candidate races in Rhode Island state elections, 2008: $7.2 million [22]
Revenues of the third largest corporation in Rhode Island, Hasbro, 2008: $4 billion [23]
----
These comparisons illustrate how easy it will be for one company, one
industry, or the corporate class overall, to dominate the electoral
discourse in the wake of Citizens United. We won't know how this plays
out, of course, until after it happens. Will Exxon alone decide to
spend, say, $500 million to oppose or support candidates? Perhaps not
-- but the company might, and it certainly could. The mere fact an
Exxon could spend that much, or more, will tilt the political process
even more in favor of big business. And it is a virtual certainty that
targeted corporate spending will escalate sharply in the wake of
decision.
Corporations do not establish their "worth" through political and
expressive speech, as the Court suggests, but through a different kind
of statement altogether -- the financial statement. That fact, combined
with their unparalleled treasuries, makes the Court's decision in
Citizens United a real and present danger to democracy. It must be
overturned.
Join the call for a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United
and restore the First Amendment and our democracy. Go to: www.dontgetrolled.org.
[1] www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_03_12.pdf
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php
[3] https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
[4] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/incumbs.php?cycle=2008
[5] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/incumbs.php?cycle=2008
[6] https://money.cnn.com/2009/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm and https://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22goldman.html
[9] https://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009.aspx
[10] https://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/08/tobacco.shtm
[11] https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
[12] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[13] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/CA.html
[14] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[15] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/CA.html
[16] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[17] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/ND.html
[18] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[19] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/AL.html
[20] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[21] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/NE.html
[22] https://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml?PHPSESSID=33c0710461d96f3c6dfadd6d8eda7e2c
[23] https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/RI.html
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.