Campaign Finances - The Impact of the Citizen's United Case on Campaign Contributions
In January, 2010, a bitterly divided Supreme Court set the world of campaign finance reform on its ear by ruling that the government may NOT ban political contributions from corporations in candidate elections. The basis for the 5-4 decision? Freedom of Speech.
The majority ruled that the right to contribute to campaigns falls under the First Amendment, and that the government has no right to regulate political speech. The ruling overturned two recent precedents affecting campaign finances and the ability of corporate coffers to fund candidate campaigns: 1990's ruling on Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates and the 2003 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission which upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Campaign Reform Act restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions. The 2002 law (also called McCain-Feingold) banned the broadcast of election opinions and communications funded by corporations or unions within 30 days of a Presidential primary and 60 days of a general election, halting what had become a growing involvement of business concerns in campaign contributions. With so much discourse on transparency and 'big government' over the past three years, clearly big business has to be celebrating the release of the stronghold over the ability of corporate America to directly influence elections through advertorial spending. The decision is a paradigm shift away from the concerns voiced over the past two decades with campaign financing and the need for finance reform.
For many, the jump between speaking out for a candidate and opening a wallet is broad. Perhaps the justices are embracing the old 'money talks' theory. The Court's more liberal justices stated their dissent with the premise that corporate speech and individual speech can be judged in the same light. Eight of the justices did agree that with freedom comes responsibility and allowed that Congress should have the ability to require spending disclosures as well as advertising disclaimers. To date, no disclosure legislation has been passed.
How did all this get started? The Federal Election Commission blocked the non-profit corporation Citizen's United from showing a 2008 film critical of Hillary Clinton (Hillary: The Movie) some 30 days before the 2008 Democratic primaries. It's unlikely that either side in what turned out to be a landmark case expected the end result of the Justice's sweeping decision.
How the ruling will effect this fall's mid-term elections remains to be seen. We should be able to see some solid spending numbers between now and the end of the year; however, disclosure is not yet mandatory. Since both non-profit and for profit corporations have been tethered for the last eight years or so, will they embrace their new freedom or be slow to adopt the change?
The most likely outcome will be a new call for additional finance reform once the mid-term dust settles. We are likely to see a strong conservative shift in Congress after the election; and it's doubtful that we'll see any action on campaign financing until well into 2011 when the next Presidential race starts to kick up into high gear.
Large corporate interests will continue to find ways to funnel their contributions to candidates through whatever legal means are available. Some of our largest corporations, including AT&T and Goldman Sachs, are the top contributors to PACs. The new ruling does open some doors in unexpected ways, the most interesting being the position on free speech itself.
Read more:
The majority ruled that the right to contribute to campaigns falls under the First Amendment, and that the government has no right to regulate political speech. The ruling overturned two recent precedents affecting campaign finances and the ability of corporate coffers to fund candidate campaigns: 1990's ruling on Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates and the 2003 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission which upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Campaign Reform Act restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions. The 2002 law (also called McCain-Feingold) banned the broadcast of election opinions and communications funded by corporations or unions within 30 days of a Presidential primary and 60 days of a general election, halting what had become a growing involvement of business concerns in campaign contributions. With so much discourse on transparency and 'big government' over the past three years, clearly big business has to be celebrating the release of the stronghold over the ability of corporate America to directly influence elections through advertorial spending. The decision is a paradigm shift away from the concerns voiced over the past two decades with campaign financing and the need for finance reform.
For many, the jump between speaking out for a candidate and opening a wallet is broad. Perhaps the justices are embracing the old 'money talks' theory. The Court's more liberal justices stated their dissent with the premise that corporate speech and individual speech can be judged in the same light. Eight of the justices did agree that with freedom comes responsibility and allowed that Congress should have the ability to require spending disclosures as well as advertising disclaimers. To date, no disclosure legislation has been passed.
How did all this get started? The Federal Election Commission blocked the non-profit corporation Citizen's United from showing a 2008 film critical of Hillary Clinton (Hillary: The Movie) some 30 days before the 2008 Democratic primaries. It's unlikely that either side in what turned out to be a landmark case expected the end result of the Justice's sweeping decision.
How the ruling will effect this fall's mid-term elections remains to be seen. We should be able to see some solid spending numbers between now and the end of the year; however, disclosure is not yet mandatory. Since both non-profit and for profit corporations have been tethered for the last eight years or so, will they embrace their new freedom or be slow to adopt the change?
The most likely outcome will be a new call for additional finance reform once the mid-term dust settles. We are likely to see a strong conservative shift in Congress after the election; and it's doubtful that we'll see any action on campaign financing until well into 2011 when the next Presidential race starts to kick up into high gear.
Large corporate interests will continue to find ways to funnel their contributions to candidates through whatever legal means are available. Some of our largest corporations, including AT&T and Goldman Sachs, are the top contributors to PACs. The new ruling does open some doors in unexpected ways, the most interesting being the position on free speech itself.
Read more: