Skip to content Skip to footer

January 6 Shows Why Corporate Political Spending Is Bad for Democracy

Corporations have no interest in a functioning democracy; they will support any system that protects their bottom line.

Trump supporters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

For a fleeting moment, corporate America looked like it would stop subsidizing efforts to undermine democracy. On January 6, insurrectionists instigated by former President Donald Trump and several high-ranking Republicans stormed the Capitol, and eight senators and 139 representatives refused to certify President Joe Biden’s victory. In response, companies made lofty promises to never again support politicians who tried to overthrow U.S. democracy. But most of the companies that made these promises are now back to enabling politicians who still unapologetically support the attempted coup. (Mostly “indirectly” via loopholes in our campaign finance system.)

But we take away the wrong message if we think of this as a failure of corporations to live up to their civic responsibility. Corporations have no structural interest in a functioning democracy; they’re interested in a government that responds primarily to their needs, and their need is to amass as much wealth as possible.

Corporations are nothing more than a legal vehicle to encourage investment. Investors in corporations receive liability protection — if the corporation goes belly-up, they lose their investment, but they are not liable for the corporation’s debts — and in return they give up control over the day-to-day management of their investment. As machines to encourage investment, corporations are an unparalleled success.

However, the dangers of letting wealth-accumulation machines engage in politics was so obvious that they were banned from doing so from 1907 until 2010. That year, the Supreme Court abandoned any common-sense understanding of corporations’ proper role in our democracy. In its notorious Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the court enabled corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money from their own treasuries to influence elections.

But what do corporations “say” with political spending? Unsurprisingly, corporations advocate for policies that allow them to amass more wealth, adding to the already lopsided “wealth primary” in this country. This ensures that — with few exceptions — only elected officials who have accepted money from corporate interests can run viable campaigns. This creates a government that is usually more responsive to corporate interests than the public interest.

Given this, why would anyone expect corporations to stand up for democracy? So long as the political system is not so chaotic that it affects their bottom line — and there is evidence that the next coup will be in courts, not in the streets — corporations have no interest in a legal system that is responsive to the general public. At best, they are agnostic toward an authoritarian regime. At worst, they might welcome it as a more robust protector of their property than democracy.

To save our democracy, we can’t rely on corporations — we need to understand that they are standing in the way. Not because they are evil, but because they are acting exactly how they were constructed to act: to amass as much wealth as possible. Corporate political spending isn’t part of the solution; it’s part of the problem.

We need to respond by limiting corporate influence on the political process. In the short term, that means supporting innovative legislation that works within current Supreme Court precedent by banning political spending by corporations under substantial foreign ownership, and limiting contributions to super PACs. In the longer term, we must reform the Supreme Court and amend the Constitution to reverse the disastrous Citizens United decision.

Forty-three years ago, Supreme Court Justice Byron White dissented in the first Supreme Court case to grant corporations the right to spend their treasury funds to directly influence the political process in a case that foreshadowed Citizens United. He warned that the decision threatened to allow corporate interests, who “control vast amounts of economic power” to “dominate not only the economy, but also the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process.” The First Amendment, he argued, did not force the public to allow “its own creation to consume it.”

The January 6 insurrection and the craven corporate response reminds us that we must reclaim the promise of a true democracy in our country, responsive not to corporate slush funds but to the people of the U.S.

We need to update you on where Truthout stands this month.

To be brutally honest, Truthout is behind on our fundraising goals for the year. There are a lot of reasons why. We’re dealing with broad trends in our industry, trends that have led publications like Vice, BuzzFeed, and National Geographic to make painful cuts. Everyone is feeling the squeeze of inflation. And despite its lasting importance, news readership is declining.

To ensure we stay out of the red by the end of the year, we have a long way to go. Our future is threatened.

We’ve stayed online over two decades thanks to the support of our readers. Because you believe in the power of our work, share our transformative stories, and give to keep us going strong, we know we can make it through this tough moment.

Our fundraising campaign ends in a few hours, and we still must raise $11,000. Please consider making a donation before time runs out.