Resize Text

Corporate Cash and the Constitution

By Damon Circosta
Published: Sep. 8, 2009

RALEIGH - The U.S. Supreme Court is something to behold.

Its marble columns and neoclassical architecture make quite an impression. But even though it is just one block away from Congress, this temple of justice only gets a fraction of the tourist traffic.

This is the most important courthouse in America. Despite its imposing structure, the day-to-day work of the court goes on with little fanfare. The court hears approximately 100 cases a year. While each one of them is important, most of the rulings the court issues receive much less notoriety than the proceedings next door at the U.S. Capitol. For every Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade, there are countless other decisions the high court makes that receive next to no attention.

Such is the situation this week. The court will hear the case of Citizens United v. FEC. The dispute stems from the 2008 election where an organization that received corporate funding sought to use video on demand to air a message critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Since 2002, certain communications have been subject to regulation under a law known as McCain-Feingold. Even before that bill’s passage, corporate spending on elections has been subject to regulation. The Citizens United case originally was brought to settle whether video on demand (a service similar to pay per view) was subject to these campaign regulations. But in an unusual move, the Supreme Court has asked the litigants to argue the larger question of whether a decades-old prohibition on corporate funding of elections should remain.

Unlike some of the more famous cases in Supreme Court history, oral arguments this week aren’t going to bring out noisy throngs of protestors. The marble steps outside the court will be mostly empty. But like nearly every case the Supreme Court hears, the impact of this decision will have ramifications far beyond the litigants.

Direct corporate funding of election campaigns is one of those things that has average Americans scratching their heads. While most of us agree that wealthy interests should not play an outsized role in who gets elected, whether or not that funding comes directly or in less direct ways is a distinction without a difference. Recently, the Supreme Court has looked upon campaign financing regulations with increased concern. Trends suggest that the court’s skepticism could result in a more lassiez-faire approach to how elections are regulated.

Whatever the justices decide this week won’t have the immediate impact of some previous Supreme Court decisions. The reverberations of this decision will be felt slowly and over time. If restrictions on corporate spending loosen, large campaign donations from corporate interests will slowly but surely find their way into the pockets of our elected officials. Hopefully, our public servants will be able to withstand the tremendous amount of pressure -- mostly unspoken -- that comes with receiving an influx of cash.

As a higher percentage of campaign contributions come from corporations and a smaller percentage comes from individuals, the concerns of corporate America -- be it less regulation of Wall Street or what to do about health-care reform -- will be addressed. In politics, money speaks. Depending on how this case is decided, corporations might be on the verge of getting a much larger microphone.