The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has generated much controversy and commentary. The court made the right decision for several reasons.
First, our laws should encourage political speech, not restrict or inhibit it. As Justice Kennedy said in his majority opinion, “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” The overblown reaction by critics of the decision ignores the importance of this long-accepted tenet of democracy.
Limits on political speech underscore the elitism and arrogance that many in the governing class have toward the governed. Voters can make up their own minds as to the validity of any arguments put forward by businesses, unions or trade associations, and they have the benefit of knowing the source of those arguments, since the court has upheld disclosure requirements. Those who are decrying the decision seem to have little respect for the voting public or the people elected to serve, implying that corporate ads will either dupe voters or buy off politicians.
Second, this decision is significant and timely because as issues — particularly economic issues — become more and more complex, it is important that voters have as much information as possible. And despite the claims of the doomsayers, corporate interests are not always aligned (see cap and trade, for one); therefore both sides of an issue will often be presented. Since the economy is usually the top issue for voters, allowing more commentary on economic issues and candidates’ positions on those issues will lead to a more informed electorate, always a good thing.
Finally, the law supports the ability of businesses, unions and trade associations to make whatever independent expenditures necessary to make their opinion known. Prior to the Austin decision in 1990, a case overturned by Citizens, the Supreme Court held in numerous cases that political speech by corporations and unions is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Laws abridging the First Amendment can only stand if they further a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, makes a forceful and persuasive case that no such compelling state interest exists to limit the free speech rights of corporations.
With the proper disclosure and transparency, allowing unfettered commentary on issues and candidates will allow voters to have access to more information, helping them make more informed choices when they enter the voting booth. That’s the American way, and it should be protected.
Joe Brennan is senior vice president of public policy for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association.
