Link: http://thecomicnews.com/edtoons/2012/0627/citizens/01.php
Date: 6/27/12
Summary: In 1990 the Supreme Court created a precedent that limited corporations use of money and speech in political campaigns. However, due to the McCain-Feingold case (2010), the precedent changed to corporations only being restricted for a number of days prior to the election. With corporations now being able to fund campaigns and ads, their political voice has increased dramatically. Corporations are using this ruling to their advantage by 'buying' the nominees loyalty. Michelle Obama in 2014 informed an audience, the only thing you can do if you want influence in the political process is to "Write a big, fat check... Write the biggest, fattest check that you can possibly write." However, sadly, the majority of America can not do this. Even if they did, the "biggest, fattest check" most Americans could write down would have no significance compared to the corporations contribution. Isn't democracy supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people? In a recent poll made in 2013, the top .01% of the U.S. made 40% of the total campaign contributions. It seems as if the influence of the political process has been hijacked by corporations.
From the other perspective, Kennedy, a justice of the Supreme Court, wrote for majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. "That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those official are corrupt. And the appearance of influence of access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy." He is stating that just because corporations are contributing to the campaign doesn't mean that the elected official will not fail to be democratic and will also listen to the people.
Questions: Are corporations people in your opinion? Why or Why not? What are the down-sides of corporations having so much political power & input? Why do you think the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also apply to corporations? Do you think this decision loses faith in democracy? Why or Why not?
As Mitt Romney said, "corporations are people!"
ReplyDeleteAlso, side note- how would this decision be reversed?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCorporations are not people in my opinion because they are not individuals, even if they may be comprised of them. The downsides of corporations having so much power are that candidates' priorities lie with the source of their funds, because they can't win power without the money to campaign. In exchange, they have to follow the demands of the rich few. But, even without corporations impacting the actions of the winning politicians, rich individuals would still have the power. At least corporations interests have a group of peoples' interests in mind, rather than a single individual. I think SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment applied to corporations because corporations are comprised of individuals and it has tolerated actions, as long as it doesn't cause immediate harm. Then again, they too could be corrupt. I think the fact this is happening does make me lose faith in democracy, simply because it's hard to really change the natural habits of people. The Supreme Court had the right to grant corporations rights, so it isn't necessarily a fault of our government but with the citizens that comprise it.
DeleteIn my opinion, corporations are not people. As Aina mentioned above, even though they are comprised of a group of people doesn't mean the corporation itself is classified as a person. When corporations have political power and input they are able to rally audiences and people to vote for their selected candidate- which I believe is harmful. Generally, corporations stand behind candidates who will help them in some shape or form even if the candidate may not be the best for the people, hence why, I overall believe that there is a huge downside to having corporations be thoroughly involved in the campaign. I think the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment should also apply to corporations because of the fact that these corporations are made up of a group of individuals. Personally, I do lose faith in democracy after hearing this decision. Ofcourse not every corporation is bad, but for the most part they are portrayed as such. Corporations today have a huge impact in the turn out of the campaign and I think that is wrong. They use their power to sway the decisions of the general populace which isn't what democracy is.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that corporations are people because corporations are groups of people, not seperate individuals. The down side to corporations having so much political input is that they only direct their influence to what they, as a corporation, want, and not what the general people want. Usually, they will try to do what is best for their corporation without considering what is in the best interest of the US as a whole. I think the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment applies to corporations because they are made up of people, and since "money talks" and it is considered free speech, the people that make up these corporations are therefore protected under the First Amendment. I think this decision weakens democracy, because it is not an equal representation of the people. Corporations have major influence on the outcome of the campaign, and their use of money to persuade the public is not representing a democracy at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous comments asserting that corporations are not people. I believe that corporations are groups that only represent a few key people, yet have very large voices based on influence. This influence has its own basis in economics in addition to popularity of the group. When corporations have a large amount of power, they can modify public opinion in a way that could be harmful to many individuals, particularly those that lack the ability to distinguish propaganda from factual information. There is of course a high possibility that the Supreme Court decision ruling in favor of corporations was influenced in some way. I think this is a good demonstration of the potential influence of corporations. If they can, as the cartoon above suggests, modify the SCOTUS decision, imagine the potential modifications they could make on society. I think the term "losing faith in democracy" is a bit strong. I think the burden really lies on the people to distinguish corporation influence from the other influences.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, corporations are not people. While they are made up of many different people and many different opinions, only the top people get to have a voice. In other words, only the people with the most power are able to express their opinions while hiding behind the face of a corporation. When corporations are able to have to much power, the real power of the government begins to lie within those few key figures; they then have the power to influence the public in a way that is extremely biased. I think that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people because they essentially are compromised of different people who have those first amendment rights. However, when looking at it from a more skeptical point of view (like that of the comic), it could be that the Supreme Court was looking more at the economic factor and at the repercussions they could face by going against these powerful groups. Personally, this does not make me lose faith in the overall concept of democracy, but makes me feel disappointed toward our government, as it does not seem to fully represent the majority of the people anymore. Some of its actions has led it to seem more like an aristocracy, as the economic gap is increasing and those on the lower end of the spectrum are overwhelmed by those on the higher end.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think corporations are people, because their support for certain candidates is usually linked to benefiting themselves in some way. Corporations having so much power and influence gives the Federal Government an unrealistic view of what "the people" want. I guess technically, there are people working within corporations who have the right to spend their own money, but they should be counted as individuals, not the people as a whole. I haven't lost faith in the concept of democracy yet, but it is quite alarming to see how much influence a select group of individuals have over the country.
ReplyDeleteI believe that corporations should be allowed to spend money to promote candidates. They are, after all, managed by people. The supreme court´s decision does in no way damage democracy, since it´s still the the individual person who votes, and all the corporations can do is attempt to convince people through ads or fund candidates campaigns.
ReplyDeleteI believe that corporations should be allowed to spend money to promote candidates. They are, after all, managed by people. The supreme court´s decision does in no way damage democracy, since it´s still the the individual person who votes, and all the corporations can do is attempt to convince people through ads or fund candidates campaigns.
ReplyDeleteCorporations should be allowed to make donations to political candidates of their choice. However they should also be limited in their donation just like people. The upper 1% of America have too much power already, they should be limited so the election is for the people, and by the people. Huge corporations just hurt democracy. The Supreme Court ruled that way because they had no Constitutional right to say otherwise. This should be changed however. The decision is a huge hit to democracy.
ReplyDeleteWhile some people do have a lot of money and that money gives them influence, it is important to remember that the constitution agrees with them. According to the constitution what they are doing is protected so they have to be allowed to do it no matter how many people disagree with it.
DeleteTo what part of the Constitution are you referring? I remember that Madison wrote about the dangers of factionalism in Federalist 51 & Washington spoke of the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address. Do you think the framers would approve of our current political reality?
DeleteIn my opinion, corporations are not people because they don’t usually have people’s interest at hand. They look to benefit themselves. Corporations having a lot of political power and input is a scary thing considering they are representing a very small portion of America and most definitely do not have the whole populations best interest. I have not lost faith in democracy but I am growing weary of the power corporations are gaining in the political realm.
ReplyDeleteEven though I believe that corporations are people too, they do not represent the majority of peoples interests. As democracy should be, both ends of the economic spectrum should be represented, and in this case the upper portion of the spectrum rests there interests in the money of major corporations and their ability to influence political matters. The fact that the supreme court supports this opinion puts full faith in democracy, even though this situation may not call for full faith do to the uneven influence that the wealthier corporations have.
ReplyDeleteCorporations are composed of many individuals, yet each and every individual does not have a say when it comes down to the massive donations to candidates and political parties. The downside of this is that one could disagree with the corporation's political stance that they work for which can reflect on and possibly harm ones social and political life. These big donations don't always necessarily represent each and every individual which goes against the fundamental principle of democracy.
ReplyDeletecorporations are made up of and created by people, so they can be considered as people. They support people and candidates which is why the candidates can't not support the opinions of the corporations is because it would be politically illogical to take out the support of the candidate. The supreme court ruled in favor of the corporations because they wanted more political support and money from organizations that have lots of money. They also argued that if the state is allowed to have some selective incorporation, so should the companies supporting the parties.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say that corporations do not have the interest of the people in mind. They often want to cut minimum wage while expanding their own power, along with their own paycheck. When corporations have too much political input, the government becomes ruled by the corporations, and not the people. The decision saying that corporations have a right to the first amendment worries me, as I cannot say that a corporation is a living person, it is an entity. So, in conclusion, letting the corporations take control of the government honestly does make me lose faith in demcracy, as it bodes ill for the future.
ReplyDeleteI believe that corporations are people as they are run and operated by people, however, they do not have the interests of the people in their minds. In many ways, corporations as large as, for example, Google, works as its own individual government with different sectors and people working for them. Since they have so much money and appeal and provide for so many individuals, they in turn have incredible power in the government. This power, however is not targeted at helping the average American but further increasing their gross income and popularity. Their unmistaken stake in American life is reason for why they are granted the first amendment rights although, this action causes me to lose faith in government as these companies in many cases, influence and have power over the government.
ReplyDeleteI think that corporations do not have peoples interest in mind when using their power and money. I think that they use their power in the political area to benefit only themselves and what will be best fro them, not ll the individuals involved in their corporation. I think that the supreme court ruled that the First Amendment also apply to corporations because of all the individuals within it and they believe that the corporations views reflect all of those within it. After hearing the decision, i lose some faith in democracy because one large company does not represent every single person.
ReplyDeleteI believe that corporations represent big power and big money. Corporations do not try to support individuals. In their eyes its all about expanding and profiting. We still see clear evidence of this, in third world countries and in china there is no such thing as "minimum wage". Individuals are basically bought and owned by these big corporations, resulting in dictatorship like actions and outcomes they impose on their workers. I fell that the support of the 1st amendment to apply to corporations is a great way for America to make equality for everyone and not forcing people to work for wages they couldn't possibly live on.
ReplyDeleteI believe that corporations are not people because they have different interests and agendas compared to regular citizens. While citizens are voting for people who share the same viewpoints, corporations are supporting presidential candidates because they are looking to get favors once their presidential candidate is in office.
ReplyDelete