The case under consideration caused a resonance in American society, as it violated constitutional norms and made the issues of democracy and freedom of speech ambivalent. After the conclusion of this case, the volume of money transfers to the election campaigns has increased markedly, which does not mean that the funding processes have become more transparent. Briefly explaining this case, Citizen United wanted to release on television shortly before the primaries in 2010 a film critical of Hillary Clinton (Citizens united v. Federal election commission | Opinion, dissent, significance, & influence, n.d.). It was meant to hurt her campaign and lower public confidence. There were specific rules for paying for television broadcasting, and it was of particular importance that the launch of the film was named too late. Campaign financiers must follow rules that tie them down, including time limits. Television broadcasting, in this case, was seen as unfair and, at the same time, violated the norms of election campaigns. Based on case law, U.S. courts did not appear to support Citizen United, given past laws (Chaturvedi & Holloway, 2017). However, five to four, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Citizen United and allowed unlimited campaign funding.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with the court for several reasons: disorderly funding, the inability of small donors to donate money, corruption, and lack of transparency. Indiscriminate and unaccountable campaign finance seems initially to lead to relatively harmless consequences. Usually, people tend to understand this as freedom of speech and expression of support for any positions and parties. In public administration and elections, the state is obliged to monitor the processes of campaigns to prevent the coming to power, for example, of an ochlocratic leader. Different people can own prosperous businesses, and not all of them are worthy of having the last word in government.
The decision taken by the court in the long term will make it impossible to assist selected candidates for small businesses. The state, as a protector, could support small businesses, but in a field where extensive financial competition reigns, only business titans can dictate the rules. Small business has their interests: the environment, tax cuts, healthcare and social packages. The state can only protect these interests when competing with the wealthiest companies.
Corruption in the sphere of governance is the most critical and saddest consequence of the court decision. In a system where big businesses can matter so much, where they can break and change the rules, sooner or later, corruption reaches unprecedented levels. Business owners can feel safe, imposing, and bold in such a system (Lau, 2022). The state in which the ruling party comes to power largely thanks to the financing of a large company will not be inclined to check its leaders and processes within it rigidly. This company will be able to promote its interests to the first positions, regardless of other less wealthy companies.
However, one should never forget that the laws of market relations are not applied to the political field. It leads to a lack of transparency, which the judges, who mostly supported Citizen United, sought to avoid. The judges assumed that rules could balance the exorbitant costs of companies in the election race because each company would not have the right to hide as a donor (Abdul-Razzak, 2020). People will see which company donates to the candidate; consequently, society will understand which corporations represent specific interests. However, the system is still too complex, especially for most people who do not have special education in politics and economics.
The above dangers can be summed up in the concept of lobbying, which is already developed in the U.S. and some other countries. Lobbying by large corporations is dangerous for creating a state that meets the values ​​of transparent social mobility, democracy, and freedom of speech (Rosenberg, 2017). Lobbyists and leaders of large companies do not want to be representatives of the people but only want to protect themselves and provide themselves with opportunities for further business. It has nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy, but lobbying makes sense for pragmatics.
References
Abdul-Razzak, N., Prato, C., & Wolton, S. (2020). After Citizens United: How outside spending shapes American democracy. Electoral Studies, 67.
Chaturvedi, N. S., & Holloway, C. (2017). Postdiluvian? The effects of outside group spending on senate elections after Citizens United and Speechnow.org v. FEC. The Forum, 15(2), 251–267.
Citizens united v. Federal election commission | Opinion, dissent, significance, & influence. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica.
Lau, T. (2022). Citizens United explained. Brennan Center for Justice.
Rosenberg, D. (2017). The corporate paradox of Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, 11.