Elections for sale?

Abstract

The case overruled earlier Supreme Court decisions stating that corporations may not use general treasury funds to pay for political advertisements and electioneering. The 5–4 ruling effectively frees corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups to use general funds to buy advertisements that explicitly try to sway voters. The majority opined that restrictions on for-profit and non-profit spending violated the Constitution's free-speech guarantee. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated: “Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster”. Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent raised several interesting issues, including: “Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech”. Prior precedent had ruled that one individual may spend as much money as he/she wishes to produce and broadcast his/her personal political advertisements, but whenever two or more people join to speak out about a candidate in this way, they must register as a “political action committee”, a complex administrative and reporting requirement that carries the threat of fines and even imprisonment if not followed to the letter, and which limits single contributions to $5000. The Citizens United case did not rule on the outright ban that has been in effect for corporations (since 1907) and for labor unions (since 1947) on donations that they might want to make directly to a federal candidate or a candidate's campaign organization. President Obama and his congressional allies have vowed to respond with legislation. The introduction of a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision – even though it will be a tough sell – is in the works. Pundits have begun to chatter about public financing of campaigns, to help level the playing field. The decision likely cuts both ways for environmental advocacy; on the one hand, such groups are no longer limited to political action committees and can spend money on publicly disseminated election communications. Conversely, smaller eco-advocacy groups could be easily outspent by larger, anti-environmental corporations and special-interest groups. Corporations must tread carefully on environmental issues. Last fall, a number of “green” companies resigned from the US Chamber of Commerce, because that organization opposed EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. Companies such as Nike and Apple heard from their customers and realized that the Chamber's activities conflicted with their goals. The Court's decision also pertains to non-profit advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club, which was fined $28 000 in 2006 for distributing pamphlets that compared the environmental views of the presidential and senatorial candidates. Unfettered debate is one thing; spending enormous sums of money to influence an election may be quite another. Ultimately, the 2009 Supreme Court opinion in Summers vs Earth Island Institute may be more important to environmental groups or “sympathetic” individuals; in that case, the Court ruled that such groups can challenge regulations in court only if they can show that they will be directly harmed (a “concrete, particularized injury”) by specific actions resulting from the regulations. The ramifications of Citizens United will be many, and we can count on being swamped with even more media-induced cacophony from both ends of the political spectrum. I personally am more thankful than ever for my TV's digital video recorder.