41°
Clear
FRI
 62°
 31°
SAT
 55°
 35°
SUN
 57°
 35°
MON
 53°
 34°
TUE
 51°
 33°

PD Editorial: The case for Citizens United advisory vote

Proposition 49 on the Nov. 4 ballot asks voters whether Congress should overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision that freed corporations and labor unions to spend on congressional and presidential campaigns.

It’s a non-binding advisory measure, addressing only one aspect of the money-talks culture of political campaigns, and it may serve the cynical goal its critics claim: getting Democratic voters to the polls in a low-turnout election.

Yet Proposition 49 also serves a larger purpose — keeping a spotlight focused on the inexcusable failure of Congress and the Federal Elections Commission to address the cascade of money seeking to influence elections and, by extension, the U.S. government.

The nexus between money and power is nothing new.

One of the few exceptions was a century-long prohibition on corporate and union spending in federal elections. That ended in 2010 with Citizens United, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign spending by unions and corporations is protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantees.

The ruling created new sources for big-money super PACs that are allowed to accept contributions of any size. Of even greater concern to us, the ruling resulted in more money flowing into shadowy “social welfare” and “issue advocacy” groups that exploit a loophole in the tax code to keep their donors’ names secret.

In a display of naiveté (or worse), the Supreme Court majority in Citizens United asserted that disclosure rules would provide a bulwark against campaigns funded by anonymous donors.

“With the advent of the Internet,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court, “prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

There’s one big problem with Kennedy’s analysis. Neither federal law nor FEC regulations requires prompt disclosure or, in the case of so-called 527 groups, any disclosure whatsoever.

In four years since the decision, neither Congress nor the FEC has acted to tighten the rules. Meanwhile, more and more political money is flowing into anonymous campaigns. Spending by 527 groups increased from $480 million in 2007-08, the last election cycle before Citizens United, to $535 million in 2011-12, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


comments powered by Disqus
© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View