Legal Research

According to some court watchers, the Supreme Court appears set to unleash a massive wave of corporate political speech.  In an unusual move, the court ordered a re-hearing of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  The case was a challenge by Citizens United to an FEC ruling that limited the group's ability to broadcast a video that was highly critical of then-candidate Hilary Clinton during the 2008 political campaign.  Corporate money was used in the production of the video, and as the law currently stands, campaign spending by corporations and unions is treated differently from spending by individuals.  These limits on corporations have been in place for more than 100 years.  

Considering the huge advantage in available cash that corporations enjoy, lifting the restrictions on corporate spending is carrying the fiction that a corporation is an artificial person too far.  Given that ExxonMobile had a gross profit of $190,000,000.00 for the last quarter of 2008, while Pfizer grossed a mere $40,184,000.00, I know I would not be alone in feeling that at last I had lost any notional ability to petition my Congressperson, in the rising tide of corporate spending.  Even though lobbying by corporations currently renders private citizens' ability to influence their elected officials risible (check out OpenSecrets.org for a scarifying look at who's spending what to buy whom) , allowing unlimited political spending by corporations would officially put an end to democracy. Unless, of course, you're talking about democracy for corporations.