Supreme Court Ruling On Campaign Finance

There has been a huge furor over the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down campaign finance laws aimed at limiting corporate spending in the electoral process. Polls show that 80% +/- of Americans believe the court was wrong in their ruling and these numbers are consistent across party lines.

As much as it pains me to say it, the Supreme Court was correct in their ruling. Don't misunderstand, I don't like the idea of corporations being able to finance elections without limits. However, if we look at current law from a strictly objective point of view, it is the only decision they could make. Current law in the United States recognizes corporations as essentially equal to an individual. Though the officers of corporations enjoy some legal protection from financial responsibility, corporations themselves are afforded most of the same rights and responsibilities as individuals and can in many instances be held to the same standards of behavior and face the same consequences. As long as this remains in American law, you cannot deny them the right to use their money as an individual would and as they choose. The fact that they have more money, while disturbing to some, isn't really relevant when deciding the Constitutionality of law. Even individual citizens can incorporate themselves, so do we apply the same standards to them that public opinion wants to impose on multinational, multibillion dollar corporations? What about churches that have subsidiaries that are incorporated because they're outside the scope of the 501-c protections offered non-profits?

These facts won't appease those who are outraged by the decision, so what can be done? First of all, the Supreme Court was clear that there can be reasonable legal limits. It is quite clear from the decision that laws can be implemented to prevent foreign corporations from using their money to influence American elections. Laws limiting direct contributions to individual candidates remain intact. I believe legislation requiring greater openness and accountability with stockholders would be upheld. This could force corporate executives to be more careful and more open in how they use money in the area of electoral influence.

More extreme measures are available as well. Lawmakers could change the status of corporations, stripping them of many of rights and protections they share with individuals. This would have potentially massive effects on the business, governmental and legal systems, some of which could be difficult and troubling. But it is an option.

I admit to being a bit confused by the reaction of the two parties. For at least two decades we have been hearing from conservatives about how the courts have become so activist, creating new law rather than just interpreting it. The court certainly cannot be accused of being activist in this case, yet they still cannot get any loving from conservatives. And liberals aren't any better. They have warned us for years about how the courts were (or would soon) limit free speech. Here, the court rules against limitations, and liberals are unhappy. The fact that both sides are upset just makes me more certain the court ruled correctly.

Finally, I question whether the decision will really matter in the long run anyhow. Even if the court had ruled in favor of the limitations, corporations and special interest groups have long proven adept at finding loopholes. And I'm not convinced that corporations or special interest groups are really concerned about who gets elected. While they may campaign against certain candidates with negative attack ads, their real concern is having access to officials once they're in office. The real corruption begins with the lobbyists, the gifts, the socializing, the expense-paid junkets, etc. that occur once a person is in office. In reality, this decision had nothing to do with that aspect of being beholden to the moneyed interests, so I question whether a different court opinion would have even mattered.