What's missing in the debate about Citizens United v, FEC

Arguably the most important judicial action to strike down a federal law happened this fall with Citizens United vs FEC. The case struck down a core part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform that was passed in 2002. This essentially reverses a hundred year process of regulations on union and corporation spending in federal elections. The court held that this is a violation of the first amendment right to free speech.

Liberals and conservatives alike have criticized this as a prime case of judicial activism led by the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. Much of the criticism has drawn from the fact that this allows an unprecedented increase in the sway of business over the legislature and hence, policy. What I think is surprising is that nobody has mentioned the most troubling issue of the ruling, the fact that it was business regulations that were stuck down, not individual regulations.

Now with businesses and unions able to spend as much as they want on elections, why can't individuals? In upholding the principle of freedom of speech, it was businesses that got priority, not citizens of the United States. Is SCOTUS somehow saying business speaks for the American people better than the American people? I think if you ask anybody in this country, they would certainly disagree. What principally concerns me is the pandering to business that this ruling shows. I fundamentally disagree with allowing business spend freely in elections, but if you must let them, at least let the average American do the same.