The Special Characteristics of the Corporate Structure - Essay Example

In light of the doubts raised by the documentary Big Sky, Big Money and a thorough perusal of the views of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice John Paul Stevens in the given case, it would be pragmatic and fair to say that corporations should not have the free speech rights as the individual citizens and much more needs to be done to protect the American elections from the influence of “big money”.   The big question is to decide to what extent the personification of corporations should be allowed in a democratic society like the US. This question needs to be analyzed in light of the assertion made by Justice Stevens that “the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation” in an electoral context (Stevens 301).” Thereby, the one salient characteristic of corporations is the kind of financial wherewithal they have at their disposal, to influence the outcomes of an election. This doubt needs to be approached in the context of the claim made by Professor David Parker of Montana State University in the documentary Big Sky, Big Money that in Montana elections, almost 68 % of the money being ascribed to the election campaigns could be traced to outside groups, who are taking the advantage of the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision to use corporate money camouflaged in the guise of the 501C4 free issue advocacy groups to influence the election outcomes (Frontline 1). The ads sponsored by these issue advocacy groups like the elusive WTP simply use ploys like avoiding the ‘magic words’ like elect, vote for, etc to facilitate the campaign activity guided as free issue advocacy (Frontline 1).  It simply amounts to a base and shallow playing with the statutory rules to pump corporate money into the election campaigns of the select candidates, as Rodell Mollineou, the President of the research group American Bridge extending services to 501C4 groups like WTP blatantly asserts in the documentary that “I am playing by the rules given to me (Frontline 1).”   Thereby, the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission in a way gave a free hand to the corporations to use the pecuniary power at their disposal, to extend the much-needed financial brawn to the candidates whose views happen to be in tandem with their designs. Till today the biggest obstacle before the corporate interference in the American election system was the challenge of “How to use the money to affect elections without disclosing where money is coming from (Frontline 1).” The Supreme Court decision in one stroke ameliorated this impediment by declaring corporate financing of private issue advocacy groups like WTP to be legal. The other salient hassle before the corporate interference in the election process was the onus of endowing this criminal practice with a moral justification. However, the premise lay down by the Supreme Court decision that the independent corporate election expenditure aided the cause of democracy by increasing “the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached (Kennedy 296)”, further facilitated the corporate electoral intentions. As was expected, this decision provided the much-needed fuel to the corporate lobbyists like the campaign finance attorney James Bopp to accrue the much-required constitutional and moral sanctity to the huge sums being pumped into the election campaigns by the corporations, all in the name of free speech and democracy (Frontline 1). This even conveniently sidelined the wisdom, sentiments, and pragmatic historical experience inherent in the benign statutory provisions like the hundred-year-old Montana Corrupt Practices Act aimed at restricting the corrupt corporate dominance in the electoral process (Frontline 1).      Thereby, the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission simply ignored the fact that corporations tend to differ from ordinary citizens in terms of their financial and social power and the eventual goals they intend to seek by participating in the election process. Hence, is a wrong decision and should be rectified through the available legal means to curtail the corporate manipulation of elections.   Read More