Two years later, Citizens United case causes a stir

Friday, January 20, 2012 | 9:31 p.m. CST; updated 2:39 p.m. CST, Saturday, February 25, 2012

COLUMBIA — Eleven protesters showed up to the federal court house in Jefferson City on Friday in 28-degree weather. They were there with signs and a bullhorn to demonstrate against the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision handed down by the Supreme Court two years ago on Jan. 21, 2010.

That decision took the limits off the amount of money that some political groups could collect from corporations for political ads.

The protesters on Friday were members of Occupy COMO, meeting in conjunction with more than 300 Occupy the Courts events happening across the country as listed on the United for the People website.

Rebecca Schedler, an organizer with Occupy COMO, said the movement stands with Move to Amend, an organization advocating for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit corporations from having the same rights as individuals under the U.S. Constitution. The amendment would also prohibit money spending from being judged as a form of freedom of speech.

“Corporations are not people,” Shari Korthuis, an activist and homemaker present at the Jefferson City protest, said. “There is too much money in politics, and we don’t know how much corporations are giving.”

The Citizens United decision

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 5-4 decision came after Citizens United, a nonprofit conservative organization, released a documentary called “Hillary” in January 2008, which was critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign.

The Supreme Court ruled that “political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.”

This overturned the McCain-Feingold law of 2002, which prohibited political parties from collecting limitless contributions from corporations. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee decision allows corporations to donate to super PACs, or political action committees, that pool together donations to create advertisements in support or against candidates. Corporations cannot donate directly to a candidate like individuals can, however.

Candidates are required to disclose where they get their donations, whether from committees or individuals. The Federal Election Commission has a searchable database of these donations. Historically, the majority of money directly donated to candidates comes from individuals.

But the donations to some of these committees, independent expenditure-only committees, or super PACs, are hard to trace. ProPublica, a non-profit investigative journalism website, tried to trace where donations to these super PACs came from in the 2010 congressional races, but came up empty.

Corporations as individuals

The notion of treating corporations the same as individuals under the U.S. Constitution dates back to the 1700s in a case known as Trustees of Darthmouth College v. Woodward, Marvin Overby, associate professor of political science at MU, said.

In that case, the state of New Hampshire violated its contract with the college. John Marshall, a Supreme Court judge, wrote that the private college should be treated as an individual would be if the government violated a contract with them in order to protect the corporation — the college.

In 1907, the Tillman Act prohibited corporate donations to federal elections to block Sen. “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman’s opposition from receiving money from Northern anti-slavery groups, Overby said.

“Political speech is expensive to get your voice heard in the marketplace,” Overby said. “Part of the price we pay for the First Amendment is allowing other voices in that we may or may not agree with.”

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney brought the issue up while he was in Iowa, telling the crowd during a discussion on tax policy that “corporations are people."

The effect of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “remains to be seen,” Overby said. But it’s important to keep election campaign advertisement spending in perspective, he said. Coca-Cola spent $2.6 billion on advertising its products in 2006, while President Obama’s 2008 campaign ads totaled $280 million.

Still, critics of the decision think the legislation and the removal of limits will increase corruption in elections.

“There is no possibility of democracy in this country as long as corporations can buy elections of both branches of government (legislative and executive) and the courts,” Nestor Mackno,a nurse and Columbia resident, said. “They are puppets of large capitalist corporations on both sides (of the aisle).”

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Michael Williams January 21, 2012 | 3:46 p.m.

Article title: "Two years later, Citizens United case causes a stir."

A "stir"?

(Report Comment)
Steve Justino January 22, 2012 | 11:43 a.m.

Thank you OCCUPY THE COURTS - COMO, for standing up for America!

Steve Justino
Move to Amend, National Action Coordinator, OCCUPY THE COURTS!

(Report Comment)
John Schultz January 22, 2012 | 12:15 p.m.

It would be interesting to know if the folks present at the rally thought that unions are people as well, since they (like corporations) are simply groups of people gathered together for a purpose. Do the people in corporations (or unions) lose their rights just because they wish to organize? Such a concept is ludicrous.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 22, 2012 | 2:58 p.m.

JohnS: I agree. I've marveled that folks don't care for "corporate" contributions, but unions and favored non-profits/PACs are A-OK.

OCCUPY complaints would meet with agreement from me if protesters stated that ALL political money must come from publicly-identified, individual, human citizens of the USA.

Until then, their arguments are background noise.

PS: You see, even as a conservative, I don't like the SCOTUS decision, either. Imagine that!

(Report Comment)
Steve Justino January 22, 2012 | 5:45 p.m.

@ John & Michael. Move to.Amend's position is clear. Constitutional rights belong to HUMAN BEINGS only. No corporations. No unions. No issue advocacy groups. The people in those groups retain all of their rights. The groups have NO rights separate and apart from the members. MTA is NON-partisan. We are connecting best with progressives right now, but we are always looking for principled conservatives to join us. Check is out at

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 22, 2012 | 7:40 p.m.

SteveJ: Your amendment says, "Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities..."

Interestingly, the amendment specifies corporations and LLC's, but puts everything else under "other entities".

I'd prefer more detail.

Lots more detail.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith January 23, 2012 | 6:52 a.m.

Michael Williams:

I agree. Either we include everyone - spelled out - or we don't.

Corporations are owned by people, and people work for corporations, and some of those employees (often many of them) are both employees and owners.

It seems clear from some statements made by demonstrators in 2011 that they have little or no understanding about what a corporation is.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 23, 2012 | 8:51 a.m.

Ellis: It seems clear from some statements made by demonstrators in 2011 that they have little or no understanding about what a corporation is.

Agree. So far, demonstrators clearly make a distinction between "good" money that agrees with their political agenda versus "bad" money that doesn't. "Good" money is defined as, Sierra Club, unions, any pro-choice group, Rainbow Coalition, and the like. "Bad" money is any corporation, pro-life group, conservative PAC, and the like.

Can't have it both ways. Through their decision, SCOTUS actually saved the political money from unions and liberal PACs, although liberals don't seem to recognize or acknowledge that fact. Instead, they concentrate on bad corporations, vilifying them with the public while giving unions a free pass. Given the wording of Steve J's amendment, this emphasis continues and I question the accuracy of the "non-partisan" claim. MTA is "connecting" with progressives better than conservatives, and the reason is rather obvious.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 23, 2012 | 11:13 a.m.

Steve J., all his demonstrators and their protests, seem to have originated after our Supreme Court leveled the field skewed by flawed legislation introduced by two Senators, one progressive, the other liberal. More to the point, these folks do not want a level field. Their effort is for the best control of the money provided to the Parties for the use of influencing the voters. What else Steve?

"but we are always looking for principled conservatives to join us." What a statement! Both funny and sad.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.