Dark Money REVIEW
Dark Money attempts to bring to the surface the negative consequences of allowing corporate money to infest elections. It does not make any effort to show us how corporate money might be also used to enlighten them. One might argue that the sierra club and the United Way can use the power of money to influence an election for good just as some other corporate rascal can try to tip the scales of election for bad. I thought the film was good mind you but it needed a counterpart. And it needed to address the assertion that while there are negative consequences, the consequence of government controlling who can say what might be worse.
Typically, a State grants a corporation status that is on par with that of citizens. A corporation is seen as a person in our legal system and can therefore access services and protections just like people can. Governments have the right to government protections, they have a right to use the courts to sue people or other corporations, and they have the right to express their policy preferences just like people do.
The recent Supreme Court decision Citizens United grants corporations the same rights to freedom of speech that American citizens have. They are allowed to donate money to organizations that use the money to speak out for or against certain policies they like or dislike. The Citizens United decisions simply insists that corporations not collaborate with campaigns directly when spending the money. If they want to spend the money on a campaign directly, they must report the contributions for the public to see. .
The following argument about the right of corporations to spend as much money as they want in their exercise of free speech comes from Justice Kennedy's majority decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14–15 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential”). 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 First Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.”
". . . Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. . . . it is inherent in the nature of the political process that voters must be free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes."
". . . The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."
". . . This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech."
" . . . Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster . . . The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons.'"
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Links to an external site.), 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
In Dark Money, the viewer gets a first hand look at corporations using the loophole that Citizens United left open. We see the rule being violated and we see the culprit fined. All well and good. But we are left knowing that it will be rare that corporations who use their free speech rights in the same manipulative way will get caught as they were in this film. What then? Is the solution to eliminate the right of Corporations and non-Profits to speak out about issues they are passionate about? For me, the problem is not the granting of freedom so much as the unwillingness to use that freedom responsibly. I realize that many believe that corporations, lacking conscience, were not designed to act as though they felt guilt. And that may be the central reason why I am not sure they deserve to be regarded as people until they evolve. They are not people yet. Many of them are adolescents.
Personally, I think people need to be educated to think critically about all sorts of propaganda, particularly those that try to influence with some sensational story at the last minute of a campaign.
Question for Comment: What do you think about this argument? Are corporations people? Do they have rights? Is the right to free speech (to spend as much money as they want in their advocacy of policy) one of those rights? Why or why not?
Comments