Citizens United decision and public health:The Supreme Court ruling, its implications, and proposals for action

Harmful corporate products and operations have long been a focus of public health research and advocacy. A January 21, 2010 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court had a significant effect on corporations' ability to influence policy decision-makers. In the Citizens United case the Court ruled that a federal law prohibiting corporate independent expenditures in election campaigns was a ban on free speech, thus allowing corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to election campaigns directly from their corporate treasury. Corporations will now have greater influence on election campaigns in which candidates take positions on public health issues such as tobacco control, school health education topics, the right-to-choose, automobile safety, worker safety and health, etc. Several members of the US Congress and advocacy groups are proposing legislation and constitutional amendments to address control corporate political speech. The history of corporate personhood, the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and implications for public health, and Congressional proposals to limit corporate political speech will be reviewed. Public health needs to refocus its efforts on the rights of the corporation as a fundamental, societal distal factor in health, and work with other organizations to bring the corporation back under the control of human democracy.