Corporate Speech after Citizens United

The Citizens United decision in 2010 ushered in a new era of campaign spending. The 2012 election has served as the first real test of what the decision means for American politics. Essentially, Citizens United protected corporate speech (and speech on the part of labor unions) under First Amendment provisions. This freed corporations to use unlimited funds to promote candidates.

This New York Times article focuses on a new trend. This year, major companies are sending letters to employees recommending how they should vote. They are warning about the costs of electing particular candidates and suggesting, in some cases, that voting one way will endanger the future of their company. Getting a letter from your boss can be a persuasive reason to act. It might even convince you to vote for someone. 

This is a dangerous precedent. Certainly, unions are also granted the lifted restrictions that accompany Citizens United. But, in an age of declining unionization, it is not surprising that organized labor has remained unable to keep up with corporate spending.

This raises important questions for the influence of corporations in our democracy. Wolf (most clearly in the chapter on corporations that we read weeks ago) easily dismisses those who criticize the power of corporations, saying that corporations simply provide what people want. But in the case of election spending, in which corporations are attempting to influence votes, those corporations are actively interfering in democracy. Through their economic power, they can significantly affect the path that the country takes, and this is a factor for which Wolf fails to account.

For the article, see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us/politics/bosses-offering-timely-advice-how-to-vote.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss