This book can be divided into two main parts: the description of the problem and the prescription to fix the problem. The former is more persuasive than the latter.
Jeffrey Clements is a former Attorney General from Massachusetts. He makes a
solid case about the harm caused by the landmark Citizen’s United vs. Federal
Election Commission, decided in 2010, and by subsequent cases following the precedent. The goal of his book is to promote a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen’s United.
Writing in 2014, Clements wrote that his movement is
“well on its way to a Twenty-Eighth Amendment.” There will be more analysis of
an amendment’s likelihood later in this review.
Justice Lewis Powell is the father of Citizen’s United. When Powell was a lawyer for the tobacco industry, he wrote a memo in 1971 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He advocated a sustained corporate effort to shape “an activist-minded Supreme Court” in order to protect corporations from government regulation.
President Nixon nominated Powell for the SCOTUS in 1972. Justice Powell was a consistent vote to strike down government regulation of corporations. He introduced the new concept of “corporate speech” in the First Amendment.
The key precedent before Citizens United came in 1978. Justice Powell wrote the
decision of National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. Decided by a vote of 5-4, it invalidated a Massachusetts statute banning corporate funding of ballot
initiatives.
In 2010, the five-member majority of the SCOTUS decided Citizen’s United vs.
Federal Election Commission. The court declared that for-profit corporations and
unions have freedom of speech under the First Amendment just like people do. Consequently, limits on corporate donations to political candidates or to their campaigns violate the Constitution (COTUS). The court majority overturned two
court precedents affirming the right of Americans to regulate corporate involvement in elections, and struck down the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act, which the SCOTUS had previously upheld in 2003 in McConnell v. FEC.
As a consequence of this decision, the amount of corporate money spent on
elections has skyrocketed. In addition, spending to support or to oppose candidates or propositions takes place without disclosure as “dark money.”
“These unprecedented cases transformed the people’s First Amendment speech freedom into a corporate right to challenge public oversight and corporate regulation.” A variety of regulations has been struck down under this precedent.
There is no reason to believe that the Founding Fathers or the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to extend constitutional rights to corporations.
James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, called corporations “at
best a necessary evil.” When the Declaration of Independence says “we are
endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,” the reference was to human beings. Likewise, the first words of the COTUS are “we the people of the United States,” not “we the human and corporate persons.”
“Originalists” who insist the COTUS be interpreted based upon the original meaning and intent, strongly oppose the Roe v. Wade decision, which was also written by Justice Powell. Conservatives insisted the SCOTUS has no business in
creating a new constitutional right to an abortion. If originalists were consistent,
however, they cannot also support the judicial activism in grafting the new concept of corporate speech into the Bill of Rights.
It’s doubtful anyone can plausibly deny that corporations gained vastly increased political power after 2010. Corporate donations to politicians became protected
speech, not bags of cash to buy influence. The new corporate rights reduced the
freedom of the majority of Americans to get enacted stricter disclosure laws.
That’s because judges would invalidate the laws as burdensome to freedom of
speech.
An example is a state law banning cigarette ads within 1,000 feet of a school or playground. The SCOTUS struck it down in 2001 because it violated corporate free speech. This raises the question of whether government of the people, by the people and for the people still exists.
Corporations are economic entities created by state law, not “endowed by our Creator.” If corporations were persons, however, they would be psychopaths, incapable of empathy and with a single-minded focus on self-interest in maximizing profits. The idea of the public interest and public good gets redefined as what best serves those with the most money. What best serves the corporate interest is weak government regulation, unless it is of potential competitors.
It would be in the public interest, for example, to have fewer junk food ads targeting children, but courts prevent the law from limiting corporate speech.
Ditto for stricter regulation of for-profit colleges that rely upon Pell grants, federal
student loans and GI benefits. As Republican Theodore Roosevelt said, It is “folly
to try to prohibit them (corporations), but…also folly to leave them without
thoroughgoing control….There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains.”
Corporate persons can’t vote, but they don’t need to in a pay-to-play system. A handful of powerful industries spend $billions on lobbying and on electing friendly politicians. Unions donate as well, but they aren’t in the top 20 spenders on lobbying in Washington D.C. That’s the reason the federal minimum wage hasn’t been raised in decades, federal tax cuts go disproportionately to those who can best afford to pay, and economic inequality has been steadily widening in the U.S. and is wider than in other developed countries.
THE REMEDY
Clements issues a clarion call to ensure that “government of the people does not perish from the earth.” He is convinced that reform is possible. “The people have
always had the last word” on what the COTUS means. That’s true in theory, but rarely in practice.
Since the Bill of Rights were adopted in the early 1790s, there have been only 17 more amendments in more than two centuries, and it took a Civil War to enact three of them. Only six of those 17 overturned SCOTUS decisions. Six times in 230 years. Proponents of the ERA found out the hard way
how difficult it is.
The fact is that the COTUS is the most difficult written constitution in the world to
amend. It is impossible to ratify an amendment without overwhelming bipartisan
support, which Clements recognizes. The last time our country was so sharply
polarized was on the eve of the Civil War. The five justices who decided Citizens United were all Republicans. Corporate money goes to pols in both parties but favors Republicans. If anything is certain other than death and taxes, it is that the
party that benefits from the status quo will not voluntarily surrender its advantage.
Clements calls such talk “defeatism.” I think it is the political reality. Denying the
extreme partisanship won’t change it. Clements is more persuasive, however, when he writes that even failed drives for an amendment, such as the ERA, still have beneficial effects by focusing attention where it’s needed. It seems doubtful that we the people would have voted to endow corporations with unalienable
rights. -30-