Congress Shall Make No Law...
4:01 PM
“Money Isn’t Speech” and “Corporations Aren’t People.” So What?

Most of the popular arguments against the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC boil down to two sound bites: “Money isn’t speech” and “Corporations aren’t people.” Both of these statements are obviously true. But neither has anything to do with whether political spending—even spending by corporations—is protected by the First Amendment.


IJ has made these points many times, but we’re not alone. Writing yesterday in the Huffington Post, law professor Geoffrey Stone explains why it doesn’t matter that money isn’t speech:


Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Thus, a law that prohibits political candidates to spend money to pay for the cost of printing leaflets, or that forbids individuals to contribute to their favorite political candidates to enable them to buy airtime to communicate their messages, directly implicates the First Amendment. Such laws raise First Amendment questions, not because money is speech, but because the purpose of the expenditure or contribution is to facilitate expression.


Similarly, last month, law professor Kent Greenfield wrote an excellent takedown of the “corporations aren’t people” meme:


Citizens United did not hold corporations to be persons, and the court has never said corporations deserve all the constitutional rights of humans. The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from self-incrimination, for example, does not extend to corporations.


In fact, saying corporations are not persons is as irrelevant to constitutional analysis as saying that Tom Brady does not putt well in handicapping the NFL playoffs. The Constitution protects the rights of various groups and institutions — whether Planned Parenthood, Bob Jones University or the AFL-CIO — though they are not “natural persons.”


Neither of these professors appears to be a fan of the result in Citizens United. Nevertheless, they recognize—as any honest critic must—that the most popular arguments against that ruling are empty slogans. We hope that other critics of Citizens United will follow their lead.