Supreme Court Sides With Corporate Donors
January 21st, 2010The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision today that will enhance the ability of the deepest-pocketed special interests to influence elections and the U.S. Congress, according to a pair of leading national campaign finance reform organizations, Common Cause and Public Campaign.
The decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which overturned the ban on independent expenditures by corporations, paves the way for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections.
“The Roberts Court today made a bad situation worse,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. “This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy. The path from here is clear: Congress must free itself from Wall Street’s grip so Main Street can finally get a fair shake. We need to change the way America pays for elections. Passing the Fair Elections Now Act would give us the best Congress money can’t buy.”
“This decision means more business as usual in Washington, stomping on voters’ hope for change,” said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. “Congress must take on the insider Washington money culture if it wants to make the changes voters are demanding. The way to do that is by passing the Fair Elections Now Act.”
The Fair Elections Now Act (S.752 and H.R. 1826) was introduced by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.). In the House, the bipartisan bill has attracted 124 additional cosponsors.
Both bills blend small donor fundraising with public funding to reduce the pressure of fundraising from big contributors.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
January 21st, 2010 at 5:09 pm
It might be useful to point out a couple of things in regard to this decision.
(1) It also allows labor unions and similar organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money supporting candidates they endorse; and,
(2) Regardless of whatever ill effects might result from corporate and union money being unleashed in this way, there has always been a huge first amendment argument against restricting expenditures made by non-government persons.
If the American people want to restrict campaign spending, specifically spending that involves expression of opinion, the only clear-cut way to do that, in the opinion of many constitutional scholars, is to amend the Constitution.
The courts have ruled many times that any expression of opinion constitutes “speech” as protected by the first amendment, although they have put limits on that such as the crying-fire-in-a-crowded-theater exception.
The first amendment was, according to Madison and others, specifically designed to protect political speech; logically, a restriction or limitation on spending by private parties to exercise that right can be read as denial of first amendment rights.
Limiting the ability of corporations, unions or other persons to express their opinions is not going to clean up politics, and might actually promote deeper corruption as money that would have been spent in the light of day is spent under cover of darkness.
Ads, after all, are public and visible. Once ad money is spent by a corporation or a union to advertise for or against a candidate, we will know who is spending the dollars and have a reasonable idea of what they are trying to accomplish.
Hardly anyone, save a few intrepid journalists, have any idea of what the 50,000 lobbyists in DC are spending millions of dollars for since, although documented (usually), the information is not immediately and egregiously public, as advertising is.
Let the corporations and unions spend their money in public, on advertising, without restrictions, and let us then decide if we agree or disagree with their choices.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:45 pm
DNC Chairman Tim Kaine Says Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance Undermines Free and Fair Elections and Democracy – Must Not be Allowed to Stand
WASHINGTON, D.C. Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Tim Kaine released the following statement after the Supreme Court?s decision on the Citizens United campaign finance case today:
The Supreme Court’s ruling today will allow the money of corporate interests to flood the political process, will undermine free and fair elections and further erode voters’ confidence in our system of Democracy. It is a major victory for oil companies, banks, health insurance companies and other special interests that already use their power over Washington to drown out the voices of regular Americans.
“As we said in our amicus brief on this case, restrictions on corporate influence over elections are necessary if we are to have a system that allows actual voters and candidates to be heard and if we are to encourage the record number of small donors who participated in the 2008 election to remain involved. This ruling changes the rules just as more small donors are beginning to play a greater role in the political process.”
“Voters are angry and anxious because they believe the system is tilted against them and instead is designed to benefit the special interests. The concerns of voters are well founded – as we have seen over and over again how armies of corporate lobbyists descend on Capitol Hill to fight everything from health care and financial regulatory reform to efforts to lower energy costs and reverse the effects of global climate change. This ruling undermines the free speech rights of citizens whose views will be drowned out by wealthy corporate interests whose aim will not just be to influence which candidates get elected – but how they vote once they are in office.
“Not surprisingly, Republicans have hailed this decision – the same Republicans who have stood with corporate America year after year to block any measure that would benefit Middle Class Americans at the expense of the corporate bottom line. Republicans are tone deaf if they believe that the anger and disgust that voters have right now towards our political system is not borne in large part out of their rightful belief that the corporate special interests have too much sway over elected officials and public policy. On this, Republicans are again taking the side of the special interests over the people’s interests.
“President Obama has said that his Administration will immediately work with Congress to develop a forceful response to this decision which, in the public interest, simply must not be allowed to stand.”
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:42 am
Well, I find myself in agreement (on this issue) with the Republicans, but for my own libertarian reason: first amendement rights. The risk you run, in a constitutional democracy that guarantees certain “unalienable rights” is that there will be a downside to the exercise of those rights.
In perspective, this decision only affects advertising and extends, as noted in my earlier post, to labor unions as well as corporations, the former usually having a far different agenda than the latter.
I believe the decision is constitutionally sound based on the first amendment; if there is a groundswell of popular opposition to the decision, then let’s amend the Constitution to allow such restrictions. The decision will not, in my opinion, be the end of the world that the DNC chair is predicting.
Most states require political advertising – print or broadcast – to be labeled with the name of the organization buying it. That means that this money will be spent in the full light of day, allowing voters to take note of which special interest groups are backing specific candidates.
That being the case, ads, let’s say paid for by a major corporation or corporate lobby backing Candidate A over Candidate B, depending on the ideology of the voter seeing the ad, could well have an effect the reverse of what the ad buyer intended.
Ultimately, if we want to end “politics as usual” a far more fundamental change in governance structure is needed, not patchwork remedies that end up violating constitutional rights, whether cloaked as “national security” or “campaign finance reform.” As long as “politics as usual” continue, we will have corruption, rent-seeking, and special interest group perversion of true public interest.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
The problem is, Yana, the entire system is weighted to corporate interests. They have most of the money. They amassed it under Bush in unprecedented amounts.
Just as the corporate media dominates our coverage of issues, which means “the people” do not really find out what is actually going on much of the time, unless they turn to the Web Press.
Congress should and will take another stab at writing a law that limits their influence on our out-of-balance political system. As I’ve said before, the only way to fix this once and for all is to move entirely to a public finance system for national elections. Otherwise, giant, monopoly corporations and their lobbyists will continue to foul the system — and the people will continue to get screwed…
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:43 am
Maybe this will help people understand the issue better. Another good reason to check the news page on a daily basis.
The Court’s Blow to Democracy
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
The record of the Obama campaign raising over $100 million in 2008 militates against the notion that corporations (and unions) will utterly dominate political advertising following this decision. That campaign, and decidedly non-corporate-affectionate groups like MoveOn.org show that worldclass amounts of political money can be raised outside the corporate world, indeed, outside the institutional world. The Internet really does level the playing field in that regard.
Most importantly, this is a constitutional issue. If the exercise of first amendment rights by certain “persons” (corporations and unions are legally defined as “persons”) can be restricted, then exercise of those rights by any others can also be restricted at some future date. Having freedom of speech means we have to put up with speech from those we vehemently disagree with.
Moreover, even if corporations and unions spend amounts comparable to amounts spent by national campaigns, parties and committees, it seems unlikely they can crowd out the opposition. There are a gazillion cable channels, hundreds of local television and radio stations, the Internet, etc., all selling advertising. And, as noted, the Obama campaign and MoveOn.org have proven you can amounts equal to or in excess of what corporations and unions might put on the table.
A related observation here is that, even if corporations and unions start flooding the airwaves with political ads, being fearful of the results also assumes that one thinks the average American voter is exceptionally fickle, that tens of millions will vote for, let’s say, Republicans over Democrats simply because there’s a lot of new advertising favoring the Republicans.
And there’s another mitigating factor at work. Most major corporations, and not a few medium and smaller ones, benefit from government contracts, subsidies and other largess. They would be insane to put hundreds of millions of dollars at risk by backing the wrong candidates. My bet is that the most money on political advertising in the wake of this decision will be spent by labor unions. They have little to lose, while the corporations have a lot to lose, by so doing.
As noted before, the only way to undo this decision is by constitutional amendment, and tinkering with freedom of speech and the press has gargantuan implications. The first amendment, according to Madison and other founders, was written especially to protect political speech. If it is eviscerated today for those with whom we may disagree, then it will certainly be eviscerated tomorrow for us.
January 23rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
No, it’s not the only way. Elect liberal Democrats, appoint new justices, who don’t define a corporation as a “person.” That’s absurd, especially since these corporations are not just U.S. corporations, but multi-national corporations.
They do not have the public interest of the people of the United States at heart, only their goddamned profits. All the while, they do everything they can to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Why should we care one whit for their First Amendment rights? The Constitution says nothing about corporations.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Read what Teddy Roosevelt said in 1905 when they banned corporate contributions, in the dissent by John Paul Stevens:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
Sounds right…
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:21 pm
The biggest problem with this that I see is that it still does not allow your typical non-profit group to become politically active even if they have a valid political agenda and do good things with the tax deductible donations you give to them. The example I will use are the non profit organizations that help people with disabilities and want to be able to accept charitable donations. Their ability to lobby congress is severely limited or they will put their status as a non-profit capable of accepting tax deductible donations at risk. If we are going to open this up to corporations then we need to open it up to non-profits also and remove all the IRS rulings that prevent them from “buying” their fair share of congress. After all I am sure we can all find a non profit to represent us. I am an Aspie I have a collection of them including the one I operate.
This is a disaster that I am not sure this country will survive. I foresee a situation that will force many of us in this country to walk a mile in the shoes of our immigrant ancestors as they looked out at the shores of their homeland with tears in their eyes realizing that they were leaving the land of their fathers for distant shores of a new world. We will be forced to choose to return to those shores because the great experiment of our fathers who sought freedom has failed. I know that if the situation in the government of this country continues the way it is now that I will be one of those that returns to the homeland of my French Huguenot ancestors with tears in my eyes about the vast failure this great social experiment here has become. Selling out to corporate interests and special interests groups means the demise of democracy if it ever really existed in this country.
January 24th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Currently, and for many decades, 501(c)3 entities — your standard non-profit organizations — have been barred from lobbying Congress for or against specific pieces of legislation. Contributions to 501(c)3s, which range from AARP to think tanks to the Red Cross, are tax-deductible. 501(c)3s can lose their tax-deductible status if they violate, in the opinion of the IRS, the no-lobbying rule.
Political action committees, or PACs, on the other hand can lobby Congress, but contributions made to them are not tax-deductible. Some 501(c)3s have closely-allied PACs that lobby on isssues for them, thereby avoiding losing tax-exempt status for the parent organization. And of course there are hundreds of trade organizations and special interest groups that lobby directly. Many special interests hired Washington lawyers (sometimes known as “little Satans”) to lobby for them. They mostly live on K street.
So far as I know, there is no legal limit on the amount of money corporations or unions may use to lobby Congress.
The Supreme Court ruling does not affect contributions to parties, candidates or PACs. The ruling merely allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts *running their own advertising* for or against specific candidates. The candidates get no control over that category of money and do not get to keep any surplus in a campaign committee bank account, as they do now.
Evil in Washington is done, and has been done for decades, by lobbyists, against whom very little if any effective legislation has been enacted. Restricting amounts that corporations and unions may spend on advertising, while it is a great “feel good” measure, would do zero to change the lobbying environment in Washington. In other words, it would do zero to change “business as usual” in the Capitol.
One thing the government could do, that would likely pass constitutional muster, is to require a “no campaign advertising” clause be added to all contracts with private companies. That is, making it a contractual requirement that the company engage in no campaign advertising as a condition of getting and keeping the contract.
That alone would eliminate practically all of the Fortune 500 companies, and would not be a blanket statutory denial of first amendment rights, which is what the Supreme Court ruling was all about.
I predict that within the next election cycle, leftists and progressives will be making use of this ruling for their own political campaigns and will be glad it was made, even if they don’t admit it in public.
January 24th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
What seems to be missing in this legalistic discussion, especially by Yana, is the question, “What kind of country do we want to have,” and not the question, “What does the constitution say and what did the founding fathers intend?” As to the latter question, I have no doubt in my mind that in the late 18th century the founding fathers, in framing the First Amendment, never dreamed that private companies would be trying to control who was elected to office. I am quite sure they intended this amendment to apply to individuals and not to corporations. The first amendment was crafted to address the concerns of rather severe oppression in England in the late 18th century of the rights of citizens to criticize the government.
We have a problem when we have a majority of constitutional literalists on the Supreme Court bench. Our constitution is a broad and very terse document deliberately intended to be interpreted in the context of contemporary times. When we have literalists like Scalia who want to try and impose their own literal interpretation to the scant words in the document and apply them to contemporary times, we are in deep trouble. The kind of constitution Scalia would be comfortable with is one like our current Alabama constitution where the citizens vote on EVERYTHING that is in the constitution. We know how functional this approach is. This largely negates the need for the legislative bodies of government.
This decision will change the landscape of the U.S. forever. It is not clear what will happen as the large corporations crowd out the voices of the smaller entities … the unions (which, btw, Yana, have a tiny fraction of the funds corporations have), small business, and the smaller institutions who will not have the money to make their voices heard. It is now clearly a rule by money. It’s a shame. Just as we were seeing the rise of individual contributions to campaigns, this will be essentially snuffed out by the tsunami of dollars that will flow from the large companies.
Something nobody is mentioning bothers me greatly. The largest companies are all multinational now. This means our politics in the U.S. will now be significantly influenced by foreign interests, more than ever in the past. And, as for looking forward to the day when the court will swing back, forget about it. Once the large corporations have control, they will ensure that their control in made permanent. Given the current party makeup, we are seeing the last Democratic administration for the foreseeable future … ever.
Europeans must think we have all gone nuts over here. They have very tight controls on how both corporate and individual contributions are made in their elections. They hold their national elections at a tiny fraction of the obscene amounts that flow into ours.
January 24th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Agreed, Ernie, although you are obviously new here. I’ve been talking about these things for years, and mentioned the fact about multi-national corporations in this thread.
It does NOT have to be doomsday, however. The people and the independent press do have the tremendous potential for power in this country. Not enough people take advantage of it.
Curiously, does it occur to anyone else to ask, where do those supposedly revolutionary tea baggers stand on this? Mutely silent, of course. It is a fake anti-government movement paid for by, you guessed it, big corporations, especially insurance companies as a way to fight national health care reform.
Watch for more money to flow their way now. We can stop them, but it will require a massive counter demonstration effort — and funding the alternative, independent Web Press where real investigative reporters can expose the bastards. We can do it for far less than they have, but it does require resources.
January 24th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Glynn, am new and did not see your comments on the multi-national issue. I believe the Tea Baggers are going to stumble on their own narrow agenda. They say they want a smaller government agenda, but the SC decision may well find corporate interests wanting to punt more expenses to the government, like health care costs. Also, corporations are not about to become the lap dogs of any group, much less the Tea Baggers. I am just going to wait and see. In the meantime I will spend my meager financial contribution on a cheap bottle of wine. Individual contributions were just neutered last week.
Maybe I am off my meds today, but I am not so optimistic as you. I don’t think we’ll be able to turn this back. We’ll just have to sit back and see how it shakes out. How will the corps handle this new responsibility of choosing our candidates and running the country? Be careful what you ask for. I have no hope that the “average American,” whoever that is, can think past the mountain of spin that is about to be poured out for the November elections. So far they have swallowed all of the shrill screaming about the health care bill. At least one survey found when you sit down with survey groups and explain what is actually in the bill, they like it. But, the Dems have done such a dreadful job of advertising the bill, the average Joe just swallows what is offered up by the talk show guys and the news outlets, who love controversy and have to time for educating.