Having benefitted from the Bush tax cuts, and roughly 10 years of derailing government oversight, the American corporate world as it exists today would make Gordon Gekko blush. Certainly, American corporations proved growth is possible in even today’s questionable economy. Consider the fact that Apple currently possesses roughly $85 billion in its coffers since becoming the world’s most valued business, surpassing energy producer Exxon Mobile. This in itself is a revelation to marvel in: American corporations are, despite criticism, successful profiteers. Corporations drive innovation, however, the legitimacy of corporate personhood ought not to be the issue at stake rather how corporate personhood is defined should be the focus of legislators. Some politicians argue, if corporations want to be people, they ought to play by the rules, but what are the rules?

Americans tend to oversimplify the issues of corporate entities as purely “unions versus businesses” or average Joe versus CEO. Of course corporations are not people, but they are not foreign entities that money just mysteriously appears from either.

Ever increasing rhetoric from the Democratic Party is not conducive to building a healthy and productive relationship between business and government. The prevailing fallacy perpetrated by the Dems includes the fundamental idea that, in some way, the actions, ideas and profit incurred by corporations are not influenced by human interest. This simply is not true. Larry Elkin , MBA from New York University and former senior manager at Arthur Andersen accounting firm, said, “While Apple and Exxon may not be heading to the polls, certainly their employees will be… Democrats use corporations as both scapegoats and money trees.” Ever increasingly, the American public realizes this as well.

Ultimately, political expression is covered under the first amendment. As Justice Anthony Kennedy argued, “The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make… categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.” Under the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, in a 5-4 split of the court, non profit Citizens United should ultimately have the right to broadcast a film criticizing 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. This contradicts former legislation commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited corporations from broadcasting “electioneering communications,” or ads for political candidates.

Of course this ruling also allows unions the ability to spend under the same parameters set for corporations. Senate Republican Mitch McConnell argued the decision was monumental, but do you believe the interests of people are being met ultimately? In a time where gridlock in Congress and Senate filibustering are the norm, corporations are padding the pockets of both sides of the isle. It is the duty of the American people to stand up for what is just and right. Corporations are by people, for people.