On Wednesday night, a debate was held in the Law School about the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling held that the First Amendment “prohibits the government from limiting expenditures for political purposes by corporations and unions.”

Allison Hayward, the vice president of policy at the Center for Competitive Politics, made the pro-Citizens United argument. She claimed the case “brought corporate political expression into the same family of protected speech that everything else was in.” And I have to say, it is a pretty flawless argument. If corporations are allowed to use general treasury funds for other forms of free speech, like art or dance, why should they not be able to donate for political forms as well? In this regard, it seems like the court made a constitutional decision.

On the anti-Citizens United side, Executive Director for Common Cause Wisconsin Jay Heck used an activist court argument, meaning he claimed it was a ruling not based on the constitution, but politics. He argued that a change in the Supreme Court’s composition finally allowed for enough votes. Honestly, this is a pretty weak argument. There are activist judges on both sides of the political divide.

The idea that Citizens United redefined corporations as people came up several times. I side with Hayward, who argued that the notion of corporations as people is a misrepresentation of the case. The Supreme Court didn’t decide businesses are living entities; it decided the government can’t limit corporate free speech.
The First Amendment isn’t restricted to people; it simply limits the government’s power.

Another issue raised at the debate was the decision can easily be taken ad absurdum: If corporations can have free speech rights like citizens do, what stops them from voting or running for office? Hayward dismissed the notion, saying the ruling didn’t give corporations the equivalent rights that people have. But the case did rule that corporations do have rights; whether or not they’re “people” is irrelevant. If they’re considered people, then they have the same rights people do. But if they’re not considered people, then they have had a constitutional right applied to them, so what’s to stop having other rights applied to them, like voting or running for office? Why shouldn’t The Badger Herald run for president? Being 43-years-old, the Herald meets the age requirement for candidacy. Whether corporations are legally “people” is just another moot point.

I can see both sides being justified. Corporations can seem way too indeterminate to have a free speech right. But I can also see some justification in having constitutional rights applied to them. However, the modern state of law in this country overlooks an important consequence of an application of rights to corporations: responsibility.

With rights come responsibilities. Yes, every voting-age citizen in this country has a right to vote, but many see it also as a responsibility. Every citizen has a right to speak freely, but that speech can be limited if they yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights come with responsibilities and limits.

In that vein, if corporations want to have the rights associated with free speech, they must be willing to bear the responsibilities of being considered an entity with constitutional rights. When in trial, corporations hire lawyers that argue that they have the same due process in court that citizens do. Again, if you want rights, then expect responsibilities. Yet, the current climate doesn’t really hold corporations responsible. Sure, they may get a fine for breaking the law, but the reality is, those fines are seen as infrequent, random and are usually just a drop in the fiscal bucket.

If corporations are to be given rights, then they should face the associated responsibilities.
But many argue it’s impossible to punish a corporation the same as an individual. We can’t physically imprison them. But we can do things like freeze assets or ban them from doing business for set periods of time. “But that would surely put them out of business!” you say. Isn’t that what we do to criminals, though? We inhibit their ability to live for a set amount of time; they can’t earn much money, they can’t support their families and their social ties are severed. Why not do the same to corporations?
It may sound like a radical approach, but Citizens United was a decision that radically changed the political landscape. With radical rights come radical responsibilities.

Hold CEOs responsible to some extent, for example. Yes, it may not be fair, but it sure would give them an economic incentive to make sure no wrong doing occurs. Fine corporations ridiculous amounts. Yes, it might be paralyzing, but it would make corporations a lot more vigilant about their own behavior.

Some may argue Citizens United should be shot down, and corporations should lose their free speech rights. Others say it should be upheld, and corporations and those making them up should start bearing a seriously heavier burden of responsibility. Either way, the current state of the law related to corporations’ rights is detrimental to society.

Reginald Young ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in legal studies and Scandinavian studies