Last week’s controversial Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance has the White House seeing red. The decision lifts restrictions on corporations and unions producing or running ads that are for or against a specific candidate. President Obama expressed his frustration with the decision and vowed to work with Congress to “develop a forceful response” to the court’s ruling.
Many media outlets heralded the high court’s decision to overturn parts of a 63-year old law and throw out two precedents as the death of the American political system. Critics say the decision will give wealthy corporations more power in Washington by allowing them to run advertisements for candidates who support their interests.
Labor unions, although now free to run political ads, complained that the ruling gives big business an unfair advantage because they have more money to spend. Senator John McCain, co-author of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, agreed, saying he expects to see a deluge of special-interest money into political campaigns.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Citizens United, a nonprofit advocacy corporation, who sued the Federal Election Commission after being prevented from televising a 90-minute documentary they produced entitled “Hillary: The Movie” during the 2008 primaries. In support of the tight 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cited First Amendment freedoms. For the majority he wrote, “…a statute that chills speech must be invalidated...” The dissenters said the ruling threatens to undermine democracy.
Obama took to the airwaves and the Internet to voice his disapproval of the high court’s decision, saying it was “…a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.” His outrage is less convincing when viewed in light of the fact that he is the first major presidential candidate to opt out of public financing during an election, which he did upon realizing that he could raise more money than McCain. He also spent more money on his campaign than any other candidate in history and once in office, made behind-closed-doors deals with some of the same “special interest” groups he now claims to be concerned about. Still, the outrage is duly noted.
Before declaring that democracy as we know it is doomed, there are a few things to keep in mind. Most large corporations are publically held and therefore beholden to stockholders. They answer for business decisions and for how they spend their money. While some will increase their political advertising expenditures in light of this ruling, it makes little sense for them to put all their eggs in one basket and support one party; and historically they haven’t. According to a report by Fox news, the split between right and left contributions from major corporations has been almost equal with 49.4 percent going toward Democrats and 50.6 percent going toward Republicans.
That statistic doesn’t hold true for labor unions. The same report says political spending by unions is weighted far more to the left, with unions giving a whopping 92 percent of their donations to Democrats and a scant 8 percent to Republicans.
Also, the ruling only affects advertisements, not the amount of money corporations can donate. To help mitigate the situation, Congress can pass laws requiring prominent disclosure statements on political ads and also require shareholder approval for any political expenditure.
Finally, few have mentioned anything good associated with court’s decision, but it’s worth noting that now everyday Americans have the opportunity to pool their money to make political statements. Until last week, every time they did, they became subject to the same campaign finance laws as corporations, which are complex and restrictive. Since there is no limit to what rich individuals can spend, there was an unfair advantage for the wealthy. The Supreme Court ruling just leveled the playing field a bit for ordinary people.
