Corporate Political Access and Free Speech

H. N. Burdett

"A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold," wrote Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in his 90-page dissent from the court's 5-4 decision in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission case. That ruling swung open the door for super political action committees to pour unlimited funds from undisclosed sources into election campaigns.

Citing data to reveal that 80% of the American public feel unfair legislative access is what corporations receive in return for generously contributing to a candidate's campaign war chest, Justice Stevens predicted that corporate domination of elections would lead to disaffected voters ceasing to participate in elections.

Stevens challenged the contention of the court's conservative majority, which voted solidly in favor of Citizens United, that restricting corporate spending on political campaigns was a denial of free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. He argued that the First Amendment protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas and that corporations are not entitled to the same constitutional protections as individuals.

Stevens concluded that the court's majority opinion was "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government. . .and have fought the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. . .While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of the Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Along with a number of Democrats, Republican Senators John McCain and Olympia Snowe spoke out against the Citizens United ruling. McCain predicted "a backlash. . .when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going into political campaigns." Senator Snowe characterized the Court's decision as a "serious disservice to our country."

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who placed third in the last three presidential elections, said, "With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of cororate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars."

Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and columnist George Will, staunchly defend Citizens United, arguably the worst Supreme Court decision since the 1857 Dred Scott ruling which upheld the abominable argument equating human beings with property. Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, has introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Two years ago, the DISCLOSE act was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and in the Senate by Charles Schumer, D-New York. The legislation would not have overturned Citizens United. But it would have required transparency, including timely disclosure of funds corporations donate to super PACS that spend money on campaign advertisements. It further required lobbyists to disclose campaign expenditures to contributing corporations' shareholders. The measure would have forced super PACS to reveal their five largest donors in each political ad and further compel heads of these groups to approve an ad's message at the end of each ad. This would have at least identified corporations and organizations with at least 500,000 members that were exercising their dubious freedom of speech right by seeking to buy elections.

The initial DISCLOSE act of 2010 was approved in the House of Representatives by a 219-206 vote. Only two Republicans - Mike Castle of Delaware and Joseph Cao of Louisiana - voted for it. Neither is still in Congress. The bill failed in the Senate by a single vote. All 59 Democratic senators voted in favor of the measure, but no Republicans offered support.

Rep. Van Hollen re-introduced the bill earlier this year, stating: "We need to restore accountability in our elections. The American people have a right to know the source of the money that is being spent to influence the outcome of our elections. They should be told who is behind the millions of dollars in campaign ads and they should receive this information in a timely fashion."

Citizens United gives labor unions, which traditionally support Democratic candidates, the same First Amendment right as corporations, which historically back Republican candidates. Why then is the Republican National Committee pursuing its current state-by-state union-busting campaigns? Which, of course, has nothing to do with the unions' empowerment under Citizens United, right?

That odor one detects emanating from the conservative establishment's rabid support of the Supreme Court's cynical Citizens United decision is the stench of the defense of political corruption once an opening to advantageously tilt the playing field is recognized.
###