A Citizen's Dilemma

As an individual, I'm fairly certain that I will benefit from the recent Citizens United ruling. As an employee of a corporation in a sector that does substantial lobbying to get laws passed to its benefit, it stands to reason that I will benefit also. Those favorable laws and actions keep employment and wages in this sector high, likely increasing my future income. So, in my role of individual, my best interest lies with maintaining the status quo.

However, as a citizen, I worry about the distortions that occur when money is used to amplify demands upon the government - especially when those amplifications are unequal, sometimes brought about by sector profitability that in turn is enlarged by increased sector lobbying. I might easily take up the argument, presented by Robert Reich in his book Supercapitalism, that only citizens have the right of free speech, and all political contributions should have to come directly from a citizen's income (after tax, take home pay!) - and that as non-citizens, businesses, corporations, non-profits, foreigners - in short, any entity that is not directly a citizen of the country, cannot make contributions nor lobby our government.

So, instead of the corporation for which I work being able to take company profits and lobby the government for more favorable laws to maintain and increase those profits, I would have to do so myself (if I thought it worthwhile), or perhaps pool with my fellow employees and do so.

Since it would be straightforward to assume that laws will be passed (under this second idea) that prevent a corporation from making contributions by funneling the money into an employee's hands with the purpose of passing on to lobbying, this sort of regime should level the playing field, and allow those in society that don't have access to such deep pockets a greater voice. That, in turn, should create more even laws across all sectors of our society, but the effect may be that in my particular sector, the reduction in lobbying power will curtail future profits, and perhaps my future wages (fn1) also (or, more likely, future wage growth).

So, we have a citizen's dilemma: How does one choose between courses of action when the interests of the individual conflict with the interests of the citizen? What is the moral basis for determining which is the correct decision?


(fn1: Those who know me and my work my find it unlikely that the outcomes will be much different, i.e., Neither outcome is likely to see me flirting with either poverty nor riches, nor would it for most individual/citizens. The likely difference is probably just a few percent over many years, so the moral arguments will have to be similarly nuanced and subtle. However, one can easily see that for some individuals in our society, the difference in outcomes is much larger, and hence the personal dilemma they face.)