If I own six companies, can I get six votes?

Why shouldn’t corporations be allowed to vote or hold office? If Citizens United gives these institutions the same free speech rights as individuals, wouldn’t voting and running for office be appropriate as well? Indirectly, one could argue that corporations already vote and hold office. They do it through individuals that represent their interests. However, there are legal reasons why an entity can’t vote or hold office. We operate under the rule of “one person, one vote.” Since one person can own and operate many corporations, would it be possible for one person to cast many ballots?

“I would not know how to extend the concept of a citizen to such an entity even if I thought it was a good idea. And I certainly would not want to let corporations vote, given that individuals can set up multiple corporations at the drop of a hat.” (Epstein, pg 646) The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by Congress in 1947, was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or opposition to federal candidates (Abrams, pg 19) but, with Citizens United, the environment has changed and concerns about the corporate take-over of American politics is on the rise. Many feel these concerns are unwarranted.

In the article, Six Myths About Campaign Money, Eliza Carney states, “I don't think you're suddenly going to find 1 percent of corporate gross expenditures moving into politics, largely because there were so many ways to spend that money before". In fact, an argument exists that Citizens United is more advantageous for unions than for corporations. Corporations must answer to stakeholders (Carney, pg 2) and unpopular choices can cause financial problems. The same cannot be said for unions. “Corporate boards have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, and it is an open question whether particular campaign contributions could be a violation of their duties on the ground that they deal with matters unrelated to the interests of the corporation.” (Epstein, pg 656)

But, it seems the decision of Citizens United was more about immediate implications and less about future ramifications. “Although much of the immediate reaction to Citizens United focused on the decision’s short-term impact on political spending, the doctrinal impact of the decision is likely to be more significant.” (Kang, pg 243) Undoubtedly, Citizens United will have an impact that will “extend over many decisions and years.” (Kang, pg 248)

Why can’t corporations or unions vote or hold office? Common sense tells us that a group is not an individual. Corporations and unions represent a collection of individuals but they do not have the same limitations inherent to individuals. “Human beings die, do not enjoy economic advantages like limited liability and, most important, have a conscience that sometimes transcends crude economic self-interest.” (Abrams, pg 21) President Obama said in his State of the Union Address, "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." (Epstein, pg 653) While Carney disagrees with the Presidents “dire prediction” and feels these concerns have yet to “materialize”, the future impact of Citizens United cannot be ignored. “The ruling has sweeping, long-term ramifications, election-law experts and even some conservatives say. The decision signals a turnabout on the Supreme Court and a seismic shift in constitutional and campaign finance law.” (Carney, pg 2)

Reactions to Citizens United have ranged from public shock (Teachout, pg 186) to accusations of sidestepping by the court (Youn, pg 144). The “real” ramifications of Citizens United have yet to have a severe impact on the political world. The “perceived” ramifications are troubling. As an example, since 1985, I have founded 3 NPOs, 1 LLC, and 1 Sole Proprietorship. If corporations and organizations someday have the right to vote, I should be entitled to at least 6 votes; including my individual vote. While it may be rare for one vote to alter the outcome of an election, six votes could certainly have an impact.

If this option is made possible by Citizens United, I hope common sense will prevail.

References
Abrams, F. (2011). Debating Citizens United. The Nation, 292(5), 19-23. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Carney, E. N. (2010). Six Myths About Campaign Money. National Journal, 8(7), 2. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Epstein, R. A. (2011). CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT BIG CORPORATIONS SHOULD HAVE BUT DO NOT WANT. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; , 34(2), 639-661. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Kang, M. S. (2011). AFTER CITIZENS UNITED. Indiana Law Review, 44(2), 243-254. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Teachout, Z. (2011). The Historical Roots of Citizens United v. FEC: How Anarchists and Academics Accidentally Created Corporate Speech Rights. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 5(1), 163-187. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Youn, M. (2011). First Amendment Fault Lines and the Citizens United Decision.. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 5(1), 135-161. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.