In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed business groups to side with a candidate during an election company. McCain–Feingold Act limiting the rights of corporations during the pre-election race is recognized as unconstitutional. This Act officially known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or BCRA, was passed in 2002 and entered into force on 1 January 2003 (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). It became the primary anti-lobbying law in American electoral legislation, significantly limiting the flow of corporate money to party cashiers and funds of individual candidates. The case concerned the conservative non-governmental organization Citizens United, which was not permitted to show their campaign film targeting Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election campaign on television (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). The Supreme Court, in which the majority belongs to the Conservatives, declared the law unconstitutional. The court considered a violation of freedom of speech to be a restriction on the campaign’s financing in support or against the candidate.
Should the First Amendment Protect Corporate Political Expression?
During its existence, corporations have been able to achieve the same rights as ordinary citizens of the country. For this reason, they are subject to constitutional protection by the First Amendment on freedom of speech. In practice, however, this has only allowed corporations to expand their economic and political influence, the level of which most citizens will not be able to achieve. Corporations have the right to advertise their products, as well as to disseminate information they consider essential to society. Combined with the influence and power they have, such information can become propaganda and be used to manipulate public opinion. Thus, the natural principles and human rights of freedom of will and choice are violated.
Considering the risks that policies will thus be given to financial and industrial interests, measures must be taken to create certain restrictions on corporations. It must be recognized that the power they have to influence their granting of certain civil rights. It does not mean that the corporation should be deprived of constitutional protection, but they should limit their influence on public opinion, especially during periods such as elections. Once the Citizens United v. FEC case has been decided, one can be trace how much it has affected the political situation in the country. According to Cillizza (2014), a dramatic increase in external campaign funding can be seen. At the same time, the percentage of donors with no disclosure has increased significantly.
What Strategies Should be Employed to Advance Position in Oversaw Government Relations at a Business, Considering the Citizens United Decision?
Thanks to the decision to let a lot of money for elections (and accordingly in politics), the campaigning rules change. The decision also gave rise to a separate phenomenon – the so-called “super committees” or Political Action Committee (shortly PAC) (Cogan, 2012). The role of election headquarters gradually passes to them, with an even greater reference to money. Such a new channel of accumulation of funds provides an opportunity to raise hundreds of millions of dollars which decide the outcome of the elections.
Business representatives, after the decision on the case Citizens United v. FEC, first of all, had to establish a connection with politicians, which supports their goals and interests. Thus, with the assistance of state bodies, the corporation will receive loyalty and guarantees in exchange for privileges. After that, it is crucial to cooperate with PAC. It is one of the popular strategies for lobbying interests. The choice of such an approach suggests that the 2010 decision will offset efforts on BCRA to limit lobbying.
Conclusion
Thus, the decision significantly affected the practice of financing election campaigns. It is the most severe change in election campaign finance legislation of recent decades. This precedent allowed the so-called Super PAC ‘s to freely spend funds campaigning for or against particular candidates, including trade unions and corporations, without a visible link to politics. It is worth introducing some restrictions and stricter controls on corporate activities during elections.
References
Cillizza, C. (2014). How Citizens United changed politics, in 7 charts. The Washington Post. Web.
Cogan, J. C. (2012). Corporate Politics, Governance, and Value Before and After Citizens United. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(4), 657-696.
Steiner, J. F., & Steiner, G. A. (2012). Business, Government, and Society: A Managerial Perspective: Text and Cases. McGraw-Hill Irwin.