Source: http://thetheoryofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2017/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:45:33+00:00

Document:
In Davis v. Federal Election Commission (2008) and Arizona Free Enterprise PAC v. Bennett (2011) the Court held that the governmental compelling interest to “level electoral opportunities for candidates of different personal wealth” was not a reason to limit free speech. All candidates have different “strengths”. Will the government regulate other strengths such as name recognition of a celebrity running against a no-name commoner?
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Court overruled McConnell where it abridged corporate free speech and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) in its entirety. In Austin, the Court held that corporate free speech restrictions were constitutional because “corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.” However, media corporations have the same power but they are exempt from Austin ruling. In Citizens United the Court held that laws which burden political speech are “subject to strict scrutiny.” The First Amendment was created to protect “political speech” so citizens and groups could speak freely without the threat of being restrained. The Court in Citizens United applies the standards held in Buckley and Bellotti. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) the Court held that corporations have the First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiatives. Bellotti said political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” Justice Kennedy asserts if Austin was correctly decided then “the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books.” Kennedy also says that Austin is flawed because the “majority undertook to distinguish wealthy individuals from corporations” since both can have “unfair input” on elections. Also “All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech.” Austin also brings forth another government “compelling interest”: the anti-distortion rationale. Kennedy says that the “anti-distortion rationale” is a “dangerous and unacceptable consequence because Congress could ban political speech of media corporations.” A corporation that owns a media company would have preferential treatment over other companies that the First Amendment does not distinguish between. Austin is also discriminatory because it “prevents the distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth” and it is “not aimed at amassed wealth.” Another compelling government interest brought up in the Citizens United case was to “protect dissenting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate political speech.” Corporations, like the U.S. political system are democratic in nature, and a minority of dissenters lose out to the majority all the time. Besides, shareholders can sell if they do not like the corporate message or feel they wasting profits. In Bennett, the dissent says that “public funded” elections are acceptable even though 100% of the public will not like the candidates (this obviously conflicts with their “protecting dissenting shareholders” compelling interest). Another compelling interest brought forth by the government is the fear that “foreign individuals” working for U.S. corporations could “influence our Nation’s political process.” This argument also does not hold muster since a vast number of American citizens have multiple citizenships and or even live overseas but their right of free speech is not regulated even though they may have opinions of foreign influence. Also, a large majority of Americans are first generation immigrants who still have loyalty to their mother nation, but they are not restricted in their freedom of speech.
The dissenters in Citizens United try an “originalist” argument claiming that the Founders never intended the First Amendment to cover corporations. They contend that the Founders disliked corporations. This is true, Thomas Jefferson, like many Republican founders favored agriculture, but would they dislike the many agriculture companies that exist today? This did not stop the government from creating a National Bank and other companies over the centuries that would aid in carrying out its enumerated powers for the People of the United States: Amtrak, Conrail, Tennessee Valley Authority, and a number of financial, insurance, and retirement companies to name a few. Why is acceptable for the government to own corporations free from speech regulation while private sector companies are held to a higher standard of regulation and free speech rules? It was shown earlier that the Court has found on numerous occasions that corporations have constitutional rights. And let’s not forget what the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The Amendment makes no distinction between individual, groups, organizations, unions, or corporations. They only way the dissenters have an argument is if the First Amendment text does not say what it means or mean what it says. The dissenters even go as far to hint that “newspapers” and the media did not have First Amendment rights in the founding era.
The dissenters in Citizens United argue that Federal Commission regulations do not account for a ban on corporation free speech because they can form PAC’s. However, PAC’s are highly regulated and are not ideal for midsize or smaller companies. I will not place the full BCRA rules for corporations in this writing (they can’t reach more than 50,000 people, campaign finance money cannot come from the company treasury, they can’t broadcast messages, and there is more) but if you read the entire list of restrictions it is essentially a ban on corporate speech.
Corporations are people and money is free speech and this is defended by over 200 years of precedent. People and corporations use money every day for free speech: advertisements, marketing, gifts, travel, pamphlets, books, blogs and so forth and so on. Where would people be without corporations? Corporations may have been a bit foreign to our founders, but by the 19th century corporations have been deep rooted in American history and tradition. Corporations coupled with people have been successful in fighting evil around the world. Without corporations, we could be speaking German. Thus, corporations are just as important to our freedom as are people. This should not be forgotten.
Is money free speech? The answer to this is yes for numerous reasons I will outline in this text. Freedom of speech covers much more than speech, it covers certain conduct that may be seen as an expression. For instance, the Court has held that flag burning (Texas v. Johnson, 1989) and burning a cross in the yard of a minority family (R.A.V v. St. Paul, 1968) are constitutionally protected by free speech. Speech, regardless of how bigoted or hateful it may be, is tolerated under the Constitution. This is not to say a crime had not been committed in these cases, but a conviction cannot entail limiting free speech. The court has found that speech may be limited if the federal or state government has a “compelling interest” to do so. In United States v. O’Brien (1968) the Court upheld a federal statute that made it a crime to burn a draft registration card. In this case, the Court found that “Congress power to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping” and the “many functions performed by Selective Service cards” established beyond a doubt that “Congress has a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing destruction to draft cards.” Free speech may be restricted if the expression “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). Free speech can also be restricted if there are “fighting words” or words that are “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace” (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942). We know people use money all the time in their conduct to express themselves through things they buy, especially gift for others. Is this enough to make money free speech? Sure, especially since money is very rarely seen as “fighting words” or “inciting lawless action”. If there is no compelling government reason then a “tie goes to speaker, not the censor” (Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission, 2006).
Money as free speech comes before Supreme Court usually in the form of congressional campaign finance laws. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) was the first Supreme Court challenge to Congressional campaign finance laws. The Court found that the $1,000 limit to campaigns by persons was legal because of the compelling interest the government was trying to prevent in form of corruption or a quid pro quo appearance of abuse: “to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual financial contributions.” While the court held provisions that capped “contributions” constitutional, they found limits on “expenditures” unconstitutional: “the concept that government may restrict speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed to secure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources and to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) the Court heard challenges to the McCain-Feingold “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)”. The Court upheld most of the “free speech” limitations placed by Congress in the Act by contending that money is not free speech, pooling money is not free speech, and speech by corporations can be abridged. In his dissent, Scalia takes up all these points and wins the argument. Scalia points to four cases where “an attack on the funding of speech is an attack upon speech itself.” “In Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980), we struck down an ordinance limiting the amount charities could pay their solicitors. In Simon & Schuster v. Members of NY State Crime Board (1991), we held unconstitutional a state statute that appropriated the proceeds of criminals’ biographies for payment to victims. And in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia (1995), we held unconstitutional a university’s discrimination in the disbursement of funds to speakers on the basis of viewpoint. Most notable, perhaps, is our famous opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), holding that paid advertisements in a newspaper were entitled to full Amendment protection.” In other words, the Court had a history of protecting money as free speech. As for the pooling of money not being speech Scalia points to the Declaration of Independence: “And for the support of this Declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.” If pooling money is not constitutional then “Congress would be empowered to enact legislation requiring newspapers to be sole proprietorships, banning their use of partnerships or corporate form.” As for abridging corporation’s money as free speech, the Court has long recognized corporations as people. Although corporations cannot vote or run for office, they are taxed and own land. Here is a list of several cases where the Court has held the constitution applies to corporations: Bank of United States v. Deveaux (1809), Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad v. Letson (1844), Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (1853), Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), Smyth v. Ames (1898), Hale v. Henkel (1906), Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States (1931), United States v. Martin Linen and Supply Company (1977), Citizens United v. FEC (2010), and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014).
The Left would love to create an Amendment to the Constitution to end corporate personhood, but then they cannot be taxed or the government cannot seize property for eminent domain reasons. Is that truly what the Left wants? As Justice Thomas correctly points out in his McConnell dissent “why the bribery laws are not sufficient” to overcome the concern of corruption and quid pro quo actions in our election process does not make sense? Thomas also points out “Media corporations are also influential” over elections. Newspapers routinely endorse local and federal candidates to “influence people”. If the press is “too influential” what is to stop Congress to regulate our press from writing “biased” or “slanted” news stories. Besides, McConnell was truly about protecting incumbents as well as stopping “attack ads” on TV. Sure, we are tired of “attack ads”, but like it or not that is free speech protected by the First Amendment. Corporations considered as people and money concerns over free speech only seems to an issue in campaign finance, the Court does not seem to question these principles in any other type of case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.