Alexander and Hanson (2012) make a balanced case both for and against the issue of corporations being allowed to finance political campaigns. And it is true that there are two sides to the argument. It appears from the evidence that there is a stronger case for allowing corporations to finance political campaigns than there is, based only on anecdotal evidence, the case against corporations being allowed to finance political campaigns.
Obliquely, the Bible seems to support the notion of corporate political campaign finance, as expressed in Matthew (NIV). Similarly, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling in 2010 that opened the floodgates on corporate money in political campaigning. Olasky (2013) as always makes the case for stronger Christianity in our culture, and states that evil is not found in corporations (institutions) or in individuals, but merely in our fallen state as human beings. Ecarma (2003), in his writing, tends to also present both sides of the issue, though he does not address it directly, but rather from a culture perspective, and his words could be used to support either position.
But my belief, based principally on the idea that if labor unions are organizations and have the right to contribute financially to political campaigns, then corporations, as organizations, certainly have the same right. Though one might make a distinction between a labor union and a corporation, the distinction is a fine one, and, I believe, a negligible one. Political campaigns are speech driven, and according to the US Supreme Court, money is equal to speech, as far as the First Amendment is concerned. So there is a valid argument supporting the case for corporations being allowed to contribute financially to political campaigns.
The Case For
I would answer in the affirmative, and would do so for several reasons. One of the reasons results from a sense of fairness, which could be termed social fairness. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010 ruled that, in essence, “corporations are people– at least as far as the First Amendment is concerned” (Schiff, 2012). According to the court, that ruling was based on a belief that money is equal to free speech, which is a given right of all Americans based on the Constitution of the United States. Financing political campaigns is one form of speech protected by that right.
A similar reason can be given based on culture theory (Ecarma, 2003). The author makes the case that, “[c] ultures, like individualism, struggle for influence and boundaries. In fact, cultures are made up of persons who are involved in social relations. Naturally, group interaction reflects the contending cultures. There is a sense of a balance of powers and cultural theory”(Ecarma, 2003, p. 107).
One could similarly make a biblical case for an affirmative answer. The Bible, while not answering this question directly, still tells us that we are to “make disciples,” and one could infer from that that the making of disciples includes the efforts of corporations as well as individual persons. Finally, Olasky (2013) makes a strong and compelling case for an affirmative answer. In speaking of the definition of “crusade,” Olasky talks about the irony of where evil originates, or where it comes from, “not in specific individuals or institutions, but in the nature of man apart from God” (para three, Part III, last section).
