Editor’s note: Below are some responses to last week’s Supreme Court decision on campaign spending – “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” – courtesy of the Washington Post.
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
Co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation.
The Massachusetts election Tuesday was the last one conducted under rules that had been in place for over a century to protect the right of the people to choose their government free from enormous expenditures of corporate wealth. Next time voters want to send us a message at the ballot box, they may find their voices drowned out by wealthy corporations with their own special-interest agendas.
This Supreme Court decision takes us back a century to a legal framework that fostered a golden era of corporate influence. While the core of the McCain-Feingold law – the ban on unlimited “soft money” contributions by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals directly to the political parties – remains intact for now, the reasoning of this decision undermines a host of laws enacted to strengthen our democracy.
This decision gives a green light to corporations to unleash their massive coffers on the political system. Oil companies, with virtually no harm to their balance sheets, can now try to “take out” members of Congress who don’t toe their company line. Foreign-owned companies are free to underwrite candidates of their choice.
Because of the scope of the Citizens United decision, it will take close examination to see what can be done to restore the voice of the average citizen in elections. We must not stand by as corporations threaten to dominate our democratic process. If the race in Massachusetts showed us anything, it’s the power of voters. In our democracy, that power – not the power of corporate wealth – should decide our elections.
Cleta Mitchell
Partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law; filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Citizens United on behalf of two organizations opposing the ban on corporate expenditures.
The Supreme Court has correctly eliminated a constitutionally flawed system that allowed media corporations to freely disseminate their opinions about candidates using corporate treasury funds while denying that constitutional privilege to Susie’s Flower Shop Inc.
New Populist in Chief Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are howling, pledging hearings and legislation to reverse the court’s decision. But don’t look for Coca-Cola television ads endorsing or opposing candidates. That isn’t the way business works, thinks or acts.
The real victims of the corporate expenditure ban have been nonprofit advocacy organizations across the political spectrum. After the 2004 election, the Sierra Club paid a $28,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission for distributing pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental records of the two presidential and U.S. Senate candidates. Because the Sierra Club is a corporation, the FEC accused it of making an illegal corporate expenditure.
What businesses, large and small, should do is spend time and money educating their employees, vendors and customers about candidates and officeholders whose philosophies and voting records would destroy or permanently damage America’s free enterprise system.
Why are Democrats afraid of that voice?
Kenneth Gross
Leads the political law practice at Skadden Arps; former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.
Contrary to popular reports, the sky is not falling. The Citizens United decision will not profoundly affect the for-profit corporate community. Companies’ government affairs operations are based on the development of long-term relationships, supported by directly giving through PACs and personal contributions.
The rules regulating direct and PAC contributions have not changed one iota. Also, the requirement that political spending under this case be independent of a candidate is antithetical to the overarching mission of how a government affairs operation works. So, the “club” that the Supreme Court has given corporate America is an unwieldy one.
No doubt, trade associations will look for ways to raise funds to attract or support candidates, but they will not find many deep, willing pockets among corporate members. Budgets are tight and shareholders will be keeping an eye on them. Also, many corporations have already signed on to transparency agreements regarding political spending. So-called “front groups” trying to disguise their mission will be few and far between.
This may not be the prevailing view of the implications of the Citizens case – but it is likely to be at least the short-term reality.