If you love the Iraq war, global warming and free trade, gosh, have I got great news for you. This week the US Supreme Court heard additional arguments in a case concerning Hillary: The Movie, a notorious anti-Clinton documentary that was set for release during last year’s Presidential race. The film’s producer, an organization called Citizens United, was prohibited from broadcasting the film because their funding sources included corporate contributions, and broadcasting the film was thus deemed to be a form of corporate-backed campaigning that is prohibited under campaign finance law.
The conservative-dominated Court was expected to put that prohibition under serious scrutiny, but the surprise in this week’s hearings was the breadth of their inquiry. In the words of The New York Times, “the conservative justices who spoke showed a disdain for both Congress’s laws and for the court’s own prior rulings.”
The US Supreme Court is historically reluctant to re-examine its own past precedents; it’s highly unusual, though not unheard of, for the court to overturn decisions that the Court has previously reached. (Overruling lower courts is another matter, of course; that’s what the Supreme Court is for.) In a situation like the current Clinton case, the typical path is for the Court to rule on the issue at hand by focusing on relatively narrow and specific grounds, without re-opening past decisions.
Despite this tradition, the Court’s conservative justices indicated that they may indeed be up for revisiting the Court’s past decisions upholding campaign finance laws. At issue is the question of whether corporate contributions or corporate-backed campaigning is a form of political speech that has First Amendment protections; a century of legislation and court decisions stretching back to 1907 has established limits on campaign spending as crucial to free and fair elections. While the Court had been expected to rule in favor of the producers’ right to broadcast, this week’s arguments suggested that they may go much further, possibly overruling longstanding decisions that limited corporate financing of elections in order to prevent private companies from virtually guaranteeing election results.
The impact of such a decision would be significant — reaching not just across the 49th parallel but worldwide. So far, the Canadian media has failed to flag what’s at stake for our neighbours, ourselves and the rest of the world if the Roberts Court strikes down US campaign finance laws. As NPR reported, campaign finance watchdogs foresee a massive change in US elections if the Court goes for a broad ruling:
“It’s a disaster for democracy,” says campaign reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “It puts corporate money in the driver’s seat. It will unleash amounts of money in campaigns that we have never seen before.”
No wonder commentators are concerned that this is “a case that, if decided wrongly, could surrender control of our democracy to corporate interests” and that “elections could be swamped by special-interest money.” Of course, that analysis depends on subscribing to a skeptical view of the role of corporate interests in politics, as The Atlantic points out:
If moneyed interests are inherently corrupting, this is bad news. If they’re not — and they’re just exercising their legitimate speech rights — this is thrilling. Here is where the authors of BCRA [aka the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law] are at a disadvantage: the campaign finance laws have gotten so cumbersome that even proponents of regulation in general are anxious about the law’s constitutionality and feasibility.
Well, colour me liberal, but I fall on the side of skepticism. I don’t think it was a coincidence that the US got into a war in the petroleum-rich Middle East while the White House was in the hands of a couple of oil industry millionaires, any more than it seems like a coincidence that the current US healthcare debate is being successfully reframed by the insurance industry. Corporate resources mean that corporate interests cast a long shadow in US politics (as elsewhere), and as cumbersome as they may be, campaign finance laws are the primary force constraining those dollars from exerting even more influence.
I’d love to think that a Court ruling that unleashes a torrent of corporate-backed campaigning could trigger a grassroots backlash, a rejection of the dollars-for-ads-for-votes dynamic that seems to turn cash into Congressional seats. But history suggests that voters are readily influenced by advertising and other forms of campaign spending. It would be all too easy for a company lobbyist to make good on the threat to defeat any Congressional representative who opposed (or supported) a particular piece of legislation.
So if you enjoyed the Bush years, you’ll love what the 2010 and 2012 elections would bring to American and the world in the absence of any campaign finance restrictions. Environmental regulation, health and safety laws, labour regulations — they’d all be on the table for corporate rewriting. And a world in which the US government acts unreservedly as an agent for its leading corporations is a world that is more dangerous for all of us.
Sadly, Canadians will have little say in that outcome, despite its potential impact. Comfort yourself with the knowledge that America voters have no more control than we do: it likely comes down to the single vote of Chief Justice Roberts, though we won’t know the outcome until October at the earliest. Meanwhile, all we can do is wait and watch…though we’ll have to do our watching via American media.
I did read about this story, and had pretty much the same reaction you did, but perhaps with even more dread.
With the ‘dumbing down’ of the American Electorate, I’m convinced that elections have now become a sort of Olympics of Public Relations. I trace this trend back to the evisceration of Public Education in the US that started back in the 80’s. (I’m surprised that Canada didn’t partake in this – and that’s why I find so many more Canadians more articulate than their American counterparts. You can see it everywhere.)
Without minds that are trained to question a message, you get a public that is easily swayed by strong images and voice-overs, not to mention ‘News’ networks that spew propaganda 24/7 (we know who they are). I suspect that both the Democrats and Republicans (or at least the leadership of these parties), saw a more pliable population if not a goal, at least more manageable (and malleable), since they could be governed by the right set of commercials. Liberals liked the idea of selling government programs with the right packaging, and Conservatives liked the idea of being able to easily demonize Liberals.
Now, add a vast new reservoir of funding to the media blitzes. I don’t think there is enough critical mass of ‘thinking’ to cause a backlash, as you (and I) hope for. Already, Obama has had to sign legislation that (because of the incredibly strong NRA and it’s funding) make it legal to carry firearms in National Parks throughout the US. The thought of that makes me unwilling to venture below the border very often (or at least, stay in our car until we reach our destination).
Sometimes I wonder if Pam and I got far enough away from the US, but then again, there isn’t a place on the planet that is far enough.
One way you reveal your liberalism is your exclusion of the term ‘labour unions’ from this post. They wield huge scads of cash that, with loosened laws, they’d apply with rigour and breadth that would rival any corporation.
Another interesting wrinkle in this case is that the relevant campaign finance laws do not apply to media companies. So, MSNBC on the left and FOX on the right are free from the current restrictions that apply to other donors. Where commercial enterprises face month-long (or more) embargoes before an election, media companies are free to tell their audiences who to vote for on the evening before the polls open. This seems like a strange oversight, in light of the increasing politicization of American media outlets.
Finally, there are the free speech considerations. I’d be curious to hear why you think finance campaign restrictions can be reconciled with the First Amendment.
I play the devil’s advocate here, because obviously the American campaign finance system is deeply flawed and deregulation surely isn’t going to help. Still, I think it’s a more complex issue than you’ve set out.
One way you reveal your liberalism is your exclusion of the term ‘labour unions’ from this post. They wield huge scads of cash that, with loosened laws, they’d apply with rigour and breadth that would rival any corporation.
Another interesting wrinkle in this case is that the relevant campaign finance laws do not apply to media companies. So, MSNBC on the left and FOX on the right are free from the current restrictions that apply to other donors. Where commercial enterprises face month-long (or more) embargoes before an election, media companies are free to tell their audiences who to vote for on the evening before the polls open. This seems like a strange oversight, in light of the increasing politicization of American media outlets.
Finally, there are the free speech considerations. I’d be curious to hear why you think finance campaign restrictions can be reconciled with the First Amendment.
I play the devil’s advocate here, because obviously the American campaign finance system is deeply flawed and deregulation surely isn’t going to help. Still, I think it’s a more complex issue than you’ve set out.
David, you’re dead right about the role of political education in this picture. In an ideal world (i.e. no place I’ve visited) education would play a role in vaccinating the electorate against the impact of advertising by fostering some critical skills around how to make sense of ads that are all-too-often full of very misleading information and sound bites.
Darren, you’re right that I left out the potential loosening of restrictions on labour spending, but the coffers of organized labour (particularly in its current state!) are no match for corporate resources. So I don’t buy your argument that their spending would rival any corporation (well, maybe any ONE corporation, but not all the corporations put together!)
You’re absolutely right that it’s a complex issue, and that the campaign finance system is a mess. But that’s a reason that it should be cleaned up — and covered with some nuance — not a reason to downplay the issue or the impact of this decision. Re: the First Amendment issue, the argument that campaign finance advocates make (and which the courts have long recognized) is that speech rights (including campaign contributions) pertain to individual citizens, not corporate (or labour) organizations.
David, you’re dead right about the role of political education in this picture. In an ideal world (i.e. no place I’ve visited) education would play a role in vaccinating the electorate against the impact of advertising by fostering some critical skills around how to make sense of ads that are all-too-often full of very misleading information and sound bites.
Darren, you’re right that I left out the potential loosening of restrictions on labour spending, but the coffers of organized labour (particularly in its current state!) are no match for corporate resources. So I don’t buy your argument that their spending would rival any corporation (well, maybe any ONE corporation, but not all the corporations put together!)
You’re absolutely right that it’s a complex issue, and that the campaign finance system is a mess. But that’s a reason that it should be cleaned up — and covered with some nuance — not a reason to downplay the issue or the impact of this decision. Re: the First Amendment issue, the argument that campaign finance advocates make (and which the courts have long recognized) is that speech rights (including campaign contributions) pertain to individual citizens, not corporate (or labour) organizations.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on the power of labor unions. Check out this chart:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=L
Seven out of the top ten, and 16 of the top 20, donors over the past 21 years have been unions or trade associations. If “The West Wing” taught me anything, it’s that these groups wield huge power and influence on the Democrats side of the ledger.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on the power of labor unions. Check out this chart:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=L
Seven out of the top ten, and 16 of the top 20, donors over the past 21 years have been unions or trade associations. If “The West Wing” taught me anything, it’s that these groups wield huge power and influence on the Democrats side of the ledger.
I have to dispute the idea that labor donations are somehow comparable to business campaign contributions. Labor unions are membership organizations — organizations with a democratically elected leadership that is often charged by members with pursuing their interests not only at the bargaining table but in the political arena. Admittedly, union democracy is an imperfect creature, but you can’t compare the political engagement of a union to the efforts of a single (often privately held) corporation to sway political decision-making.
But even if you don’t differentiate between union and corporate political engagement, a full picture of their relative strengths suggests something very different from what your “7 out of 10” or “16 out of 20” stats suggest. Looking at the same site you cited, Open Secrets, you can see that Business PACs outspent Labor PACs in 2008 by $380 million to $157 million. (See http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/02/labor-and-business-spend-big-o.html) Another Open Secrets report shows an even sharper split (with business accounting for 70% of contributions and labor just 2.7%), though this is partly due to classification of what counts as business. An older report from another campaign finance advocate, Public Citizen, backs up the disparity between business and labor (see http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=451).
I have to dispute the idea that labor donations are somehow comparable to business campaign contributions. Labor unions are membership organizations — organizations with a democratically elected leadership that is often charged by members with pursuing their interests not only at the bargaining table but in the political arena. Admittedly, union democracy is an imperfect creature, but you can’t compare the political engagement of a union to the efforts of a single (often privately held) corporation to sway political decision-making.
But even if you don’t differentiate between union and corporate political engagement, a full picture of their relative strengths suggests something very different from what your “7 out of 10” or “16 out of 20” stats suggest. Looking at the same site you cited, Open Secrets, you can see that Business PACs outspent Labor PACs in 2008 by $380 million to $157 million. (See http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/02/labor-and-business-spend-big-o.html) Another Open Secrets report shows an even sharper split (with business accounting for 70% of contributions and labor just 2.7%), though this is partly due to classification of what counts as business. An older report from another campaign finance advocate, Public Citizen, backs up the disparity between business and labor (see http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=451).
You make a good point about democratically elected leaders in unions. However, I think they’re comparable–or at least worthy of mention–because they’re another well-moneyed set of groups attempting to influence American politicians.
I think the 16 out of 20 metric is as or more important than, say, the $380 to $157 million comparison, because the unions’ influence apparently comes in big chunks. Surely the Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $30 million buys a lot more influence than Vivendi’s $5 million.
In any case, I admit that my original post “wield huge scads of cash that, with loosened laws, they’d apply with rigour and breadth that would rival any corporation”–was ambiguously and poorly phrased. I should have stopped at “huge scads of cash”.
You make a good point about democratically elected leaders in unions. However, I think they’re comparable–or at least worthy of mention–because they’re another well-moneyed set of groups attempting to influence American politicians.
I think the 16 out of 20 metric is as or more important than, say, the $380 to $157 million comparison, because the unions’ influence apparently comes in big chunks. Surely the Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $30 million buys a lot more influence than Vivendi’s $5 million.
In any case, I admit that my original post “wield huge scads of cash that, with loosened laws, they’d apply with rigour and breadth that would rival any corporation”–was ambiguously and poorly phrased. I should have stopped at “huge scads of cash”.