In office hours today, Professor Hurley and I spoke about the Citizens' United case and how it relates to Brettschneider's article. Citizens' United was a Supreme Court case which effectively granted corporations political autonomy that pertains to the First Amendment. In short, corporate funding to Super PACs was protected under the corporation's right to free speech. Corporate and non-profit organizations are therefore allowed to donate an unlimited amount of funds to political candidates. Let's reframe Brettschneider's Larry the Legislator example. Larry the Legislator is under the influence of corporate demands, "locked" by corporate funding. I see the Citizens' United case as further support for Brettschneider's argument that "a society that does not value the rights of addresses of law enough to guard against arbitrary coercion would violate the ideal of citizens as rulers" (31). Effectively, Citizens' United grants rights to "natural persons" (i.e. corporations) which undermine what Brettschneider sees as a core value of democracy--political autonomy--and the ideal of democracy, self-rule (19). In this case, is revoking rights from "natural persons" mandated by Brettschneider's appeal to political autonomy? I see it as such. Perhaps this case is an example of an undemocratic decision. Yet, if those individuals with greater access to capital can undermine political elections and political autonomy, is it mandated under Brettschneider's argument that their right to free speech (as exemplified through donations to political campaigns) should also be revoked?
P.S. Shout-out to Isabella for helping me type this out. I was in urgent care today and the doctor gave me something called a "GI cocktail" without mentioning the unbelievable amount of Benadryl contained within the mixture. I want to apologize in advance if some of these points are unclear.
No comments:
Post a Comment