For those who like to mix business and politics, a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court will likely be considered a victory. But for those who prefer clean, clear campaigns and elections free of corporate involvement, that same decision is something akin to a nightmare.
The background of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is relatively simple, but it tells its own story.
Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit group, sought to promote and air Hillary: The Movie, a film critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton’s race for the White House in 2008. Following guidelines under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (often referred to as McCain-Feingold), the Federal Election Commission ruled that the commercials could not be aired, as the sole purpose of the film was to discredit Clinton in the run-up to the election. Citizens United sued for the right to promote and air the program.
The case was at the center of Obama’s remarks about the Supreme Court in his recent State of the Union address and the root of Justice Alito’s visible reaction to those remarks.
Three relatively new faces sit on the Supreme Court these days, with Alito himself replacing noted swing vote Sandra Day O’Connor. The court’s decision in this case shows loud and clear that these aren’t the days of the Rehnquist court, which affirmed much of the BCRA as recently as 2003.
The Supreme Court made, in effect, two rulings on the case:
In the first, an 8-1 ruling, the court validated the disclosure and disclaimer aspects of the BCRA. That affirms the phrase “This message was paid for by ...” and the release of contributors to campaigns.
But the more significant portion is the second ruling, a 5-4 decision that overrules limits on corporate spending for campaigns. Until the Citizens United ruling, corporations and labor unions have been banned from producing and airing their own campaign ads in federal and Presidential elections for nearly 63 years. The ruling also overturns a part of the BCRA that forbids corporations and unions from airing ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.
However, the ruling keeps in place bans on corporations or unions giving money directly from their corporate coffers to candidates. Also, the ruling specifically does not address the issue of whether foreign-owned corporations should have the same rights now granted to national companies.
In short, this means the average citizen can expect a muddier form of politics than anyone is used to.
For example, the decision would allow a company like Wal-Mart, General Motors or Goldman Sachs to produce and put on the air a commercial supporting or attacking Candidate X up to the day of the election, so long as it says “This ad paid for by Goldman Sachs” at the end. Any company can spend however much they want on political advertisements, so long as they don’t do it as part of the official campaign of a candidate.
Supporters of the decision, including many Kansas legislators, cite the ruling as a defense of free speech, that more Americans can get involved in the political process.
However, those who take this stance overlook a significant effect of the ruling. This gives corporations the ability to infest, infect and infiltrate the political process to a degree unmatched in decades.
While corporations cannot buy a candidate a seat in government, the decision certainly allows companies to buy influence to a greater degree. A company could run a series of ads touting a candidate and then make a strong argument that their contributions have curried some sort of favor with that candidate.
Not only that, but prepare yourself for theoretical campaigns like a McDonald’s “I’m Lovin’ Obama” campaign or a Chevrolet “McCain is like a rock” ad or “Yo Quiero Sarah Palin — paid for by Taco Bell.” Or a UPS “What can Scott Brown do for you?” ad. Races for office should not be like the decorated hood of a NASCAR vehicle. It sounds like a nightmare of corporate corruption and influence.
There are those who say that politics is a business. With this decision, the nation is one step closer to politics being run by business. For those who dream of federal campaigns unencumbered of business entanglements, it’s no longer a nightmare, it’s reality.
The Morning Sun
