In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided corporations would have unlimited access to political spending. This decision was known as Citizens United.

In essence, it allowed corporations the same rights as individuals in regard to religious and political freedom.

It also begged the question of what role private money should play in politics and whether or not it should have a role.

Even though American corporations are not actual living beings with needs and desires, they are afforded the same rights as any citizen.

An important right that is very influential is the right to free speech – the Supreme Court ruled that the right of free speech is also tied to the right of uncensored spending.

This is dangerous: The ways in which corporations use money to navigate the political system or, in some cases, the religious positions of the corporations can end up affecting employees.

This is evident in the well-known 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, in which the Supreme Court decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allowed for-profit companies to use religion as an excuse to deny coverage of contraceptives to their employees.

Cornell Clayton, director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service at WSU, explained why corporations having First Amendment rights is problematic.

“What is particularly troubling about Citizens United is that it allows for unaccountable spending in campaigns,” Clayton said.

According to a 2014 article from the Consumerist, the amount of money spent in local and state elections has continually increased since 2010, yet funding for campaign organizations is increasingly difficult to trace.

Despite insistence that the law equally prosecutes those who it is ordered to protect, reality suggests otherwise.

Corporations rarely face prosecutions; and if they do, settlements are usually made before any further action is taken against the whole company or key individuals within.

This is because corporations are artificial entities and are therefore difficult to manage in terms of morality and influence.

Although it is easy to prosecute individuals in a society for the purpose of accountability, it is much more difficult to prosecute a corporation.

Here in Washington, a proposal has been made in the form of Initiative 735, which, if passed, would ask the U.S. Congress to propose an amendment of the Constitution that would remove these rights from corporations. This proposal will be on Tuesday’s ballot for Washington voters.

Clayton explained that one concern about giving corporations rights is that economic elites are dominating the political system.

“They have a singular purpose and that is to make a profit,” Clayton said.

Corporate entities have enough influence in government because of financial capabilities, and their monetized interests often cause concerns of ordinary people to be placed on the back burner.

Allowing money into politics corrupts the election system because it keeps political officials and initiatives open for purchase.

It also provides undue incentive for political candidates during campaign seasons that can be detrimental to ordinary Americans wanting to get their voice heard.

Meanwhile, American media sells dreams of free and fair elections that promise that each American has the potential to affect change – when in reality, monetary interests create disproportionate influence over political agendas.

Corporations and unions are much more likely to get their concerns and issues on the political agenda when they use their funding as a way to create partisan relationships.

The constitution explicitly states “We the people” and not “We the people and the corporations.” It should therefore only apply to actual human beings who require protection by the state.

This is why Initiative 735 is a well-proposed push for an amendment to the constitution. Influence in election processes should be reserved for ordinary people to ensure that members of the society have a voice in all stages of the election process.

Editor’s note: This column is part of a head-to-head series. Read the other side here.

Basheera Agyeman is a junior comparative ethnic studies major from Accra, Ghana. She can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of The Office of Student Media.