Recently, a friend of mine, quite conservative,
argued that the Citizens United case decided by the United States Supreme Court
has not distorted the political process, but was a reaction to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, which
was the first serious attempt in ages to restore some sanity to the overwrought
process of electing officials of our government. He argued that full disclosure of the source of financing
would be the cure-all for the unlimited right of corporations to spend as much
money as they wished to ensure the election of candidates that would be less
threatening to their bottom line.
He also unconvincingly argued that labor unions have the same rights as Exxon, for
example and the same amount of monies to spend on their candidates.
Perhaps in an earlier time he would be correct in
his assumptions. He referred to a
political cartoonist, Thomas Nast, of the 19th century who exposed
the Standard Oil trust with his acid pen. These days, however, the scene is
quite different. There are so many talking heads on the networks that any position is overwhelmed by the breadth and penetration of varied points of view, but especially subject to advertising saturation ads, both negative and positive. The
candidates who win are the ones who can raise the most money and feed it into
the overwhelming media exposure they can buy.
The McCain Feingold Act was designed to address two issues: The
increased role of soft money in
campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from
raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and
local races or issue discussion;
The
proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by
defining as “electioneering communications” broadcast ads that name a federal
candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general
election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including
non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental
Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or
union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign
corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court,
in Citizens United, ruled that corporations and unions are entitled to the same
political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no
compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from
using their general treasury funds to make election-related independent
expenditures. Thus, it struck down a federal law banning this practice and also
overruled two of its prior decisions. Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the
Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with
electioneering communications are constitutional.
These were horrible rulings and serve to do
nothing more than further distort our political processes.
Now,
“Super Pacs,” ostensibly not connected or coordinating with the candidates are
spending untold millions on media commercials to sell the candidates, or even
worse, fill the airwaves with negative information, much of it out of context
and misleading.
My
friend’s full disclosure caveat holds no water, I am afraid.
But from a
conservative, the 19th century perspective is not surprising.
We live in an increasingly polarized atmosphere,
burdened by the disappearance of moderate Republicans who used to be able to work
with moderate democrats to accomplish
useful legislation.
Now we cannot even have that. The Republican party has been hijacked
by evangelical and social conservatives, backed by millions of dollars, to convince the electorate to vote against their own interests by using their checkbooks to take
stands on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, religion in public places and creationism instead of trying to reach an accommodation on education,
infrastructure investment, job creation, and expanding the middle class.
