"Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission" is a Supreme Court case we hear about often today. Politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton vowed to support amendments which seek to overturn it. Protests have taken place all over the country, calling for our government to “save democracy” and that “corporations are not people.” So, what exactly is Citizens United vs. FEC and why is it so important?

To start, Citizens United is a conservative, nonprofit organization. In the 2008 election cycle, Citizens United wanted to release a movie titled “Hillary: The Movie,” expressing their political opinions and asking voters not to vote for her. When releasing the movie, they were told they could not because of a campaign finance law which forbid corporations and unions from using money to advocate for or against federal politicians within 30 days of an election cycle. Citizens United sued, claiming this is against their First Amendment rights, because by not allowing them to spend money advocating against a federal politician they cannot produce their documentary (because that requires money) and therefore, they are being silenced.

The Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, arguing their freedom of speech was under attack. The Supreme Court ruled that limits on independent political spending is unconstitutional. This is where the controversy comes in, the rise of Super PACs. Super PACs are independent-expenditure-only committees which may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates (Center for Responsive Politics). What does this mean?

For argument's sake, let's say you believe Bernie Sanders should be elected President of the United States. You may create a Super PAC which corporations and unions are free to donate unlimited sums to. This may sound wrong. However, there’s a catch. You may not work in coordination with Bernie Sanders and you cannot donate directly to his campaign. You also must disclose all donations to the FEC. However, what you can do is advocate for him! You may use the money to create pamphlets, create a movie, advertise on television or however else you want your message to get out. You may use this money to “speak.”

Many people would argue that this is wrong. They would say that corporations will try to manipulate the people and sway the public’s opinion. They can hire advertising psychologists who will know how to manipulate the masses to think the way the corporations want you to think. Corporations are not people, and therefore, should not be granted the same rights as we have.

My response to these people, is how dare you believe that we the American people are too naive and dumbfounded that we cannot listen to the opinions of others, even of the wealthy elite. Here in America we have accesses to books, movies, and newspapers from all over the world which we can use to create an opinion of our own and see through lies and deceit. If the corporations have something to say to us, if they believe someone should or should not run for office, let them! I have faith in the American people that we can listen to them, and use their advice to formulate our own opinions.

This belief, that people cannot discern their own information and therefore corporations must be silenced, is similar to the beliefs of totalitarian regimes in North Korea and China. North Korea and China both censor their citizens from outside media sources because they are scared that they will be influenced by the democratic and capitalistic values of the west. In the eyes of these regimes, the people are incapable of discerning their own information and if allowed to view American media, they may be influenced into believing in democracy and capitalism. This way of thinking is in line with those of the American Left, the government must come in and protect the individual from varied opinions, “for his own good.” This is dangerous.

But still, corporations aren’t people, you might say. The Constitution only protects people, and therefore, corporations shouldn’t be able to have the same rights as us. I would beg to differ. A corporation is a community of people coming together to organize. The goals of the corporation are largely in line with that of its employees and shareholders. For example, look at the recent case of Bill de Blasio and Uber. The mayor was eager to put a cap on the amount of Uber cars allowed in the city in order to protect the taxi industry. Now, if you work for Uber and are supporting a family, wouldn’t you want Uber to be able to spend money advocating against Bill de Blasio? Corporations aren’t just speaking for those at the top, but people like you and me as well.

Most importantly, corporations are subject to regulation and therefore, should have a say in their government. In what type of free country is something regulated but not able to speak out against its regulator? It is essential to the institution of democracy and therefore, anything being regulated is able to petition against the government because sometimes those regulations will not be in your favor. If a federal politician were to try and cut off funding for public education, would you want the United Federation of Teachers (a NYC union) to be able to advocate against them? I’m sure you would.

An attack on one is an attack on all. Citizens United is about free speech, not buying the American government. One of the most essential values in a democracy is that all are able to be heard. We the people deserve to hear all sides of the story, from corporations and unions. We can take their opinions and use their ideas to formulate our own. The American Left’s goal to overturn Citizens United is dangerous. However, it is understandable why Bernie Sanders would be against corporations advocating for or against federal politicians. One of the first things any socialist regime does is stomp out the voice of the opposition.