« Please help Haiti. | Main | Blue Cross/Blue Shield of CA to Screw Customers in May Instead of March »

The Supreme Court ruled recently that U.S. Corporations (and foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries) can now take out unlimited political advertisements either for or against candidates running for office. The case - called "Citizens United" because that's the name of the organization that pressed this cause - is now famous and has overturned precedent leading all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt's administration in the beginning of the 20th century. It's simply stunning, with unknown repercussions that only time will reveal.

Yet, will it really matter? It's up for debate, as this article in the NY Times discusses:

"There are two things that are important in politics," Mark Hanna, the great Republican kingmaker of the late 19th century, once said. "The first thing is money, and I can't remember what the second one is."

What was true in Hanna's century remained true in the next, and since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, Congress has imposed stricter regulations on money in politics. Advocates of those rules argue that they rein in corruption and increase public trust in government.

But after more than three decades, has the system made a difference?

The article goes on to cite studies that have shown that money affects outcomes very little:

Legal scholars and social scientists say the evidence is meager, at best, that the post-Watergate campaign finance system has accomplished the broad goals its supporters asserted.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker's vote. And even after Congress further tightened the rules with the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002, banning hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited contributions to the political parties, public trust in government fell to new lows, according to polls.

But is "public trust in government" the proper litmus test, and have we ever really tested what is about to enter our political lives?

Defenders of the rules say their case for tighter restrictions on campaign money is obvious to anyone who knows Washington. Private influence-seekers shower big contributions on politicians because they want to gain access and shape policy; they would not spend the money if they got nothing in return.

Fred Wertheimer, the dean of campaign finance "reformers," pointed to the presidential campaign finance system as the best example of success. For five elections beginning in 1976, the presidential candidates of both major parties took public financing and did not receive private campaign contributions. "You can't prove a negative," Mr. Wertheimer said, "but in the Carter and Reagan presidencies there were no news stories about campaign contributions influencing presidential decisions."

And yet, the case can be made that additional restrictions - like they have in the United Kingdom, or less restrictions - like they have in Australia - haven't really made a difference:

Supporters of the restrictions point to Britain to show that governments can police corruption without imperiling free speech. Britain started regulating political spending as far back as 1883 and has tightened the rules steadily ever since.

Those British restrictions would violate the Supreme Court's view of the First Amendment, yet Britain's political debates are as robust as they are in the United States.

Opponents of restrictions, on the other hand, point out that Australia barely regulates political money. Individuals and corporations can give without limit. Parties can spend freely. And there is not much disclosure about who gives what to whom. But political corruption has not threatened a vibrant democracy there.

In any event, Congress is rushing to pass laws now that will lead to greater transparency, forcing U.S. corporations to either get shareholders to vote on actual political expenditures, and/or forcing them to declare these expenditures in some public fashion.

It's hard to believe, though, that a company like Exxon/Mobile, with $43 billion in profit last year won't use some of that money to try to influence the outcome of some important political race sometime in the future. For the first time in almost a century, it's now legal for them to spend corporate profits this way.

And that is simply stunning.

Name (required)
Email
Website
Remember personal info? Yes   No
Comments

home | music | democracy | earth | money | projects | about | contact

Site design by Matthew Fries | © 2003-23 Consilience Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Consilience Productions, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
All contributions are fully tax deductible.