Does the people's opinion matter to the Supreme Court?

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling with which, according to an ABC-Washington Poll, 80 percent of the American public disagrees.

The case started with the McCain-Feingold Act, which regulated political campaign financing and advocacy of a certain candidate by a corporation or unincorporated entity (within a certain amount of time before an election).

Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to air “Hillary: The Movie” and advertise the film within the time limits banned. They were told it counted as advocacy (the film was critical of Hillary Clinton) and were not allowed to air it.

In a landmark decision that overturned the precedent set just two years earlier, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn certain portions of the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional. This ruling allows corporations to give money unlimitedly to super PACs and individual candidates, as well as run advocacy advertisements.

The majority justified their decision with five major points: prior restraint on political speech is wrong; speech cannot be controlled based on the speaker; corporations’ influence due to money is outweighed by possible loss of full and free discussion; just because the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen today’s corporations does not mean that they are less entitled to First Amendment protection; all should be permitted to speak, and the people should judge what is true and false.

The minority strongly disagreed. They also used five major points to justify their dissent: corporations should not be recognized as people because the First Amendment’s protection depends on the speaker; even though people can get together and express themselves politically, corporations were never meant to facilitate such behavior; the majority decided based on pure speculation; corporations’ personhood is nothing more than a useful fiction; the decision only elevates the majority’s agenda.

Indiana Public Interest Research Group wanted to find out how college students feel about this decision.

Only 20 percent of those polled agreed with the majority’s decision. Compared to the Court’s 5-4 decision, this is a major discrepancy. Eighty-percent dissent is right on target compared to the ABC-Washington Poll and very close with a Gallup Poll result in which 76 percent of respondents said the government should be able to regulate and limit corporate campaign financing.

Now comes the big question: Why are the Supreme Court’s and the general public’s decisions so different? There are a few possible reasons.

The Supreme Court justices are all established judges with respected reputations regarding their legal knowledge. The amount of legal knowledge is most likely limited among college students and the general public. Most people might not have the necessary background to judge a case based on pure legality.

Another reason could be that the Supreme Court is wrong. Just because they are appointed does not mean they are always right. However, there are very few possibilities to overturn their opinion other than lobbying Congress.

Many people might say the discrepancy is because the Supreme Court is not a good representation of the people; however, they were never meant to be. To establish checks and balances, the Supreme Court was to be appointed and not have constituents so that it would be able to make decisions without entanglement.

The reason that seems to make the most sense is that the Supreme Court is more conservative than the average college student and American. This is probably the most logical explanation for the discrepancy. A conservative person is going to interpret the Constitution differently than a liberal person.

However, I think that the American people disagree so strongly with this decision should have some weight. A professor once told me that if you can’t find relief in the courts, you should seek it in Congress. Another law needs to be passed either banning corporate campaign financing or strongly regulating it. That corporations’ voices are being heard more than those of regular Americans is wrong and needs to be changed.

­— rachbond@indiana.edu