The implications of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling, which effectively gives corporations the ability to make unlimited anonymous campaign contributions and gives them the right to free speech (Hoffman, 2009), will be good for business but bad for democracy. It has been widely written that this unprecedented spending by big corporations is basically the end of democracy as we know it (Kirkpatrick, 2010) (Hoffman, 2009) (Bickerstaff, 2010) (Stone, 2010).
However, this over-simplifies an extremely complex situation.
It implies that big business is intent on exerting undue influence on the political process for its own financial gain. As the Republican Party tends to be the most friendly to big business, they are likely to be the primary beneficiaries of this ruling. As I write this, results for the 2010 mid-term elections are pouring in, and they seem to be supporting this contention. Thanks to the Citizens United ruling, as of Oct 28th special interest “issue advocacy groups” have raised a record $455 million dollars for the mid-term elections, and have even surpassed the 2004 Presidential election spending. More than 50% of that money has gone to the Republican side (Beckel & Wilson, 2010). Though the large majority of these donations were made anonymously to these groups, it is generally understood that this influx of funds was a corporate spending spree that has allowed the Republican talking points to dominate the airwaves and have a greater influence over the minds of voters.
However, this argument misses the fact that lots of other businesses, possibly those driven more by ethics and CSR-oriented principles, find this backroom take-over of government just as creepy as the rest of us, and realize that any underhanded behavior could come back to bite them. Newsweek’s Daniel Stone wrote recently that many big businesses are shying away from making undisclosed campaign contributions because they fear alienating a particular stakeholder group that could initiate a boycott (2010). He also reports on a 2009 University of Minnesota study that showed these types of campaign contributions diminish trust among shareholders, and can actually wind up costing the company more in the long run than they would gain from currying political favors (2010).
If corporations are now considered equal to humans in the eyes of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court, it will become more important for them to be good corporate citizens, which means that they will behave ethically, honorably, and fairly. Good citizens don’t just abide by the law to keep out of trouble. They are positive forces in their communities, and they are good neighbors. So while the Supreme Court possibly just opened the floodgates for political corruption, it might very well have also just raised the bar for ethical corporate behavior. This could not only be good for business, but good for our country as well.
References:
However, this over-simplifies an extremely complex situation.
It implies that big business is intent on exerting undue influence on the political process for its own financial gain. As the Republican Party tends to be the most friendly to big business, they are likely to be the primary beneficiaries of this ruling. As I write this, results for the 2010 mid-term elections are pouring in, and they seem to be supporting this contention. Thanks to the Citizens United ruling, as of Oct 28th special interest “issue advocacy groups” have raised a record $455 million dollars for the mid-term elections, and have even surpassed the 2004 Presidential election spending. More than 50% of that money has gone to the Republican side (Beckel & Wilson, 2010). Though the large majority of these donations were made anonymously to these groups, it is generally understood that this influx of funds was a corporate spending spree that has allowed the Republican talking points to dominate the airwaves and have a greater influence over the minds of voters.
However, this argument misses the fact that lots of other businesses, possibly those driven more by ethics and CSR-oriented principles, find this backroom take-over of government just as creepy as the rest of us, and realize that any underhanded behavior could come back to bite them. Newsweek’s Daniel Stone wrote recently that many big businesses are shying away from making undisclosed campaign contributions because they fear alienating a particular stakeholder group that could initiate a boycott (2010). He also reports on a 2009 University of Minnesota study that showed these types of campaign contributions diminish trust among shareholders, and can actually wind up costing the company more in the long run than they would gain from currying political favors (2010).
If corporations are now considered equal to humans in the eyes of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court, it will become more important for them to be good corporate citizens, which means that they will behave ethically, honorably, and fairly. Good citizens don’t just abide by the law to keep out of trouble. They are positive forces in their communities, and they are good neighbors. So while the Supreme Court possibly just opened the floodgates for political corruption, it might very well have also just raised the bar for ethical corporate behavior. This could not only be good for business, but good for our country as well.
References:
Beckel, M., & Wilson, M. (2010, October 28). BREAKING: Election 2010 Outside Political Spending Officially Eclipses Such Expenditures From 2004 Cycle. OpenSecrets. Blog. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/breaking-outside-spending-this-seas.html
Bickerstaff, S. (2010, October 13). The effect of corporate cash on the 2010 elections. Know. Blog, . Retrieved November 3, 2010, from http://www.utexas.edu/know/2010/10/13/bickerstaff1/
Hoffman, A. (2009). Shades of Green. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 40–49.
Kirkpatrick, D. D. (2010, February 12). Democrats Try to Rebuild Campaign-Spending Barriers. The New York Times. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/politics/12citizens.html
Stone, D. (2010, October 13). When Corporate Strategy Meets Election Spending. Newsweek, (Online). Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/13/when-corporate-strategy-meets-election-spending.html