CAC Releases New Report on Corporations and the Constitution, Testifies at Senate Judiciary Hearing on Roberts’ Court Decision in Citizens United

Today, following a spirited Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, in which Senators on both sides of the aisle debated the Roberts’ Court recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Constitutional Accountability Center (“CAC”) released a new comprehensive report on corporations and the text and history of the Constitution.  The report, entitled A Capitalist Joker: The Strange Origins, Disturbing Past, and Uncertain Future of Corporate Personhood in American Law, examines the text and history of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s treatment of corporations from the founding-era through the Court’s recent decision in Citizens United.  The report, which is available here, demonstrates that the Court’s opinion in Citizens United is completely divorced from the text and history of the Constitution.  In upcoming months, CAC and ACS will jointly sponsor a series of events designed to bring attention to the decision’s radical departure from constitutional first principles.

As detailed in CAC President Doug Kendall’s testimony this morning, the Constitution’s text reflects a fundamental difference between corporations and “We the People” identified in the Constitution’s preamble.  Corporations do not vote, they cannot run for office, and they are not endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights.  “We the People” create corporations and we provide them with special privileges that carry with them restrictions that do not apply to living persons.

While the Supreme Court has long recognized that corporations may assert certain constitutional rights, corporations have never been accorded all the rights that individuals have, and have never been considered part of the political community or given rights of political participation.  The Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, and many times since, has emphasized that because corporations are artificial entities that receive special privileges such as perpetual life and limited liability, they are subject to greater regulation by the state.  Only once before, during the darkest days of the now-repudiated Lochner era, from 1897 to 1937, has the Supreme Court seriously entertained the idea that corporations are entitled to the same constitutional rights enjoyed by “We the People.”  And even in the Lochner era, equal rights for corporations never extended to the political process.

Citizens United is the culmination of a forty-year struggle by conservatives to reinvigorate the Lochner-era idea that corporations deserve equal constitutional rights.  In 1971, Lewis Powell – a Virginia corporate lawyer who would soon be nominated to the Supreme Court – advised corporations to look to the courts for relief, noting that that “the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.” Powell’s strategy started to come to fruition just seven years later in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, when Powell authored a 5-4 ruling for the Court holding that limits on a corporation’s ability to oppose a ballot initiative violated the First Amendment.  The Citizens United ruling dramatically expands Powell’s ruling, holding that corporations have the same constitutional rights to spend money on elections as living breathing persons, giving corporations a constitutional right to participate in elections for elective office for the first time in American history.

 

More from

Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

NAACP v. xAI

In NAACP v. xAI, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether the federal government can block people harmed by the operation of a massive power plant near their homes from...
Rule of Law
October 15, 2026

October 2026 Newsletter: In a New Supreme Court Term, CAC Defends the Environment, Workers’ Rights, and Civil Rights

There’s a litigant that the Roberts Court likes even more than Donald Trump: big business....
Criminal Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Hayat v. Diaz

In Hayat v. Diaz, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether police officers may forcibly enter homes without a warrant based only on “reasonable suspicion” of a crime.
Rule of Law
October 6, 2026

Supreme Court’s Alito Will Stay Even If Democrats Win Senate

Bloomberg
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod spoke to Bloomberg Law about Justice Alito’s reliable support for...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Williams v. Huner

In Williams v. Huner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is considering whether a Pennsylvania prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with rigid neck and wrist braces and effective pain medication violated...
Environmental Protection
October 5, 2026

CAC Release: To Escape Financial Liability for Global Warming Harms, Oil and Gas Companies Present Supreme Court with a Result in Search of a Rationale

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Suncor Energy...
By: Brian R. Frazelle