Biden, Obama, Clinton, were WRONG about Citizens United

Protesters holding a flag that resembles the American flag adorned with dollar bills, demonstrating against corporate influence in politics, with signs reading 'Money Out, People In' and 'Democracy is Not for Sale.' — Source: USNews

Gregory Lyakhov

What do the New York Times, Coca-Cola, AutoZone, and The National Rifle Association (NRA) all have in common? All are corporations. One may ask, what is a corporation? The textbook defines a corporation as a company or group authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. , a corporation is a group of individuals acting as one whole, such as a business or Nonprofit organization. Traditionally, corporations provide funds to political parties aligned with the values and ideals of the corporation. In the 2008 election, Obama v. McCain, Goldman Sachs (a large investment banking company) contributed over 1 million dollars to the Obama campaign. These types of contributions are not unusual. In the 2020 election, Las Vegas Sands donated millions to the Donald Trump Campaign. While these raise the question, why should corporations control our elections? One must understand a contribution from a corporation as a group of individuals supporting their favored candidate by providing funds through the corporation one owns. After all, one should have the right to support a political campaign through financial means. This fundamental principle was nearly stripped away from the American people in the case of Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission.

The First Amendment is dear to all Americans around the country. One would rightly be unsettled if the government forbade citizens from showing their support to a candidate by donating money. After all, a campaign needs money to win. Donating funds is an obvious form of speech. Contributing to a political campaign exercises the right to support that candidate or party; therefore, gifting a specific campaign money is a form of speech, and restricting the right to donate is unconstitutional. The same goes for corporations. Corporations face regulations through strict laws and standards set by the government. It would be unjust for corporations to have no say in who makes those laws and standards. Corporations must have the power to send statements to the public and show support for campaigns that choose to support them. Like citizens, corporations show this support through donations to candidates they desire in office. The former indicates corporations can sponsor advertisements and campaign messages for a candidate. The freedom of the press protects against media regulations. So, removing a TV commercial consequently because of the specific group sponsoring the message is wrong. Preventing corporations from donating to campaign advertisements is doing just that: silencing a message protected under the Constitution based on the group that sponsors the message.

Illustration of hands dropping money, a heart, and a credit card into a donation box labeled 'DONATIONS'. — Source: NPR

While it is clear that preventing a corporation from donating to a campaign is unfair to the corporation itself, the government would also face detrimental consequences. Elections would run based on who is the wealthiest candidate. The candidate with the most money would have a significantly higher advantage over candidates with less money. Allowing corporations and nonprofits in governmental races creates a more equal battleground between candidates. Corporate donations allow for the candidate with less money to have a chance at winning the election. The government would hold the same billionaires who have the funds to win elections if donating to campaigns was restricted from corporations. As many agree, having the same government officials year after year is not beneficial for the country. Holding the same officials in office would destroy the fundamental principles of the democracy our country values. Elections are not to keep one in office but to introduce new candidate options to the voters of the election. If we prevent organizations like Citizens United from becoming involved in elections, voters would not experience the freedoms and rights all citizens of the United States are entitled to.

An image of the Constitution of the United States, featuring the preamble 'We the People' in elegant cursive script on a scroll-like background. — Source: Harvard Law School

Maintaining an organization’s right to politicize is necessary, yet our country must represent the interests of corporations only by representing the interests of the people first. 39 states have individual contribution limits to politicians. Supposedly, contribution limits are in place to encourage donations to PACs ( political action committees). On the surface, donating to a PAC seems ideal. PACs are tax-exempt and have massive contribution power. Yet, this is far from the case. PACs encourage politicians to change the principal agenda they previously ran on to an agenda more aligned with a PAC’s principle. PACs have money, and the politicians want cash for their campaigns. State legislators support individual donation limits to force contribution money to PACs; in practice, this hurts voters, given that politicians represent PACs rather than representing the citizens of the United States. I strongly support removing all contribution limits and immediately ending the false representation of the citizens. Any state currently enacting contribution limits is doing its citizens extensive harm.

Like many reasonable people, I support a candidate based on the agenda one brings to the table, not the party one belongs to. Yet, when so many notable democrats like Joe Biden and Barack Obama actively support suppressing the underdog candidate by limiting individual contribution limits and restricting corporations from supporting candidates, it brings the whole Democratic Party into question. I am hopeful voters will realize how crucial contributions are to any candidate and finally put an end to PACs manipulating elections. The government should accurately represent the citizens; at this moment, we do not have that.