tizens. Such a theory is consistent with the theory of modern corporation law that corporations act and should be treated like individual citizens. However, the fact remains they are not the same as individual citizens. As the Court stated in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (494 U.S. 652 (1990), most states have laws that grant corporations special advantages that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their investments. These laws give corporations an advantage in playing a dominant role in the national economy and a possibly unfair advantage in the political marketplace (Marshall, J., 1990, p. 659).
In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court held the First Amendment's freedom-of-speech protections included financial contributions to candidates or parties and independent expenditures made on behalf of candidates, parties, or ballot issues (Bowman, 1996, pp. 155-56). Notably, however, the Court emphasized that in upholding the limitations on contributions, it was not sanctioning the concept "wholly foreign to the First Amendment" that "government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others" (Bowman, 1996, p. 157).
However, in the more recent cases of MCFL and Austin this is in essence what the Court has done. This idea of the relative voice of each participant in the political process is a significant concept as regards the free speech rights of individuals versus corporations. One of the major arguments made by the average individual citizen today regarding his or her perception of the political process is that it is dominated by large well-funded organizations. The current disaffection with political actors and the widely-held belief they are consummate liars is largely a result of the effect of financial influence on political activity. As players with large amounts of available finances and th...