When the United States Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission earlier this year, many commentators, including several on the Corporate Justice Blog, predicted that the decision would have a nefarious impact on future elections. Recall, that Citizens United essentially held that United States corporations are entitled to free speech rights in electioneering contributions and that Congressional prohibitions that restricted the ability of corporations to finance particular candidates in contested partisan elections were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court essentially freed corporations and unions to make unfettered election contributions to specific candidates in American elections. Now that the 2010 mid-term Congressional election period is in full swing, has Citizens United had the predicted nefarious impact? The answer to that question lies in one's perspective. Without question, corporate campaign contributions have increased in 2010 to levels never before seen.Recent empirical analysis confirms what many feared: Citizens United has “liberated” corporations from most of the campaign finance restrictions imposed by the McCain-Feingold law which were struck down as unconstitutional. While 2008 was a record-breaking election year in terms of donations, now in 2010, due in large part to Citizens United, corporate political spending has increased by 10-15%, and this despite a relentlessly depressed economy. Compared to the last mid-term election in 2006, campaign contributions in 2010 are predicted to increase by more than 35%. “Super PAC’s” are taking in money like never before, including huge corporate contributions into and large negative advertising buys by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group. More than anything else, Citizens United will likely increase exponentially the money spent on negative election advertising.
I have noticed that election advertising seems more negative and nasty than i can ever remember. I've heard that the corporate contributions are fueling negative advertising. Looks like it is only going to get worse.
ReplyDeleteIn the Florida gubernatorial republican primary race, Rick Scott, a wealthy newcomer to the political arena, spent 39 million to beat Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum. Money affects political races. The more corporations can spend on electing politicians, the more likely that corporations, instead of citizens, are the constituents of the elected officials.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of money raised and spent by candidates on an election is irresponsible. As Michelle stated, republican candidate Rick Scott has spent millions of dollars to smear his opponents. How is this responsible? Why spend millions of dollars for job that returns you only $200,000.00. In addition, it seems this year the general public has been annoyed to a whole new level by each party's smear campaigns. I for one am tired of hearing what other people have done wrong...tell me WHAT HAVE YOU DONE RIGHT?
ReplyDeleteWell stated comments above regarding corporate contributions and influence. It is rather ironic that individuals have a low limit ($2,400?) in terms of what they can contribute to federal candidates, and yet corporations have the ability to contribute vast sums of $ through either PACS or some other loophole. Is it really surprising though that many elected officials in Washington do not seem to put forth a more concerted effort to reject corporate contributions? Posted by Keith.
ReplyDeleteDoreen R.- FIU
ReplyDeleteCitizens United effectively emboldens the richest of Americans with even more political power than pre-Citizens decision. Not only can the wealthiest individuals make maximum political contributions to influence representatives but now they may also funnel funds through the corporations and organizations that they control. The political prowess of "Joe Plumber" continues a spiraling decline. Under Citizens, the wealthiest of Americans voice grows so loud that it risks drowning out the individual voice. In my opinion, it leads us away from our democratic principles.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski would not likely be a contender any longer if she had not received a major financial boost from a Super PAC that dropped more than half a million dollars into her reelection race.
ReplyDeleteMurkowski reported raising $310,000 in the last couple months for her campaign against Republican Joe Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams. The Super PAC was created by Alaska’s Native regional corporations, which have been supporting Murkowski since she announced her write-in campaign in late September after losing the primary to Miller. According to Politico.com, Alaska Native organizations see Murkowski’s seniority as their lifeline to federal funds, which are in high demand in many of the state’s more remote villages.
I, like other bloggers, hate to see the deep pocket politicians keep getting elected, but I like to see democracy at work more. Here, a Super PAC is keeping this Alaska race democratic by helping back a non-party endorsed candidate stay in the race. I vote for that.
In the Florida gubernatorial republican primary race, Rick Scott, a wealthy newcomer to the political arena, spent 39 million of his personal wealth to beat Florida Attorney Bill McCollum. Money affects political races. The more corporations can spend on electing politicians, the more likely that corporations, instead of citizens, are the constituents of the elected officials. The only way for citizens to assert their rights of representation at this point is to pressure their representatives to legislate statutes that would undo the effects of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, we are at a point in our history where corporate creatures have plagued our economy with their "by any means necessary" attitude towards obtaining a dirty dollar. Ironically, these same corporate nincompoops are being given the glorious opportunity to continue on with their rogue ways by being given an even bigger voice in politics. Although I am having a hard time believing it, it is being reported that our nation has dug itself out of this recession. Regrettably, "Citizens United" may have been the decision that put the shovel right back into the hands of the corporations that originally plowed us into the recession.
ReplyDeleteScott H. at FIU said:
ReplyDeleteThe sad irony of the Citizens United decision is that average citizens now have greater obligations of disclosure and transparency than corporations do. If you give $250 to a candidate, it gets reported to the Federal Elections Commission within hours. Yet a corporation can give $25 million to a political slush fund without ever revealing the payment. This is justified by the Supreme Court's bizarre distinction between payments directly to a candidate, and payments aimed instead at destroying an opponent. Somehow the Court seems to think there's a meaningful difference between the two. But watch 5 minutes of political ads and try to figure out the difference. But as long as the law encourages secrecy for these attack ads -- and secrecy for those that finance them -- the political discourse will only get worse.
Considering that billions of dollars are at risk-via tax increases, healthcare reform and other potential laws- it’s no wonder that corporations would pay millions of dollars to sponsor the candidates that best represent their interest in 2010. Undoubtedly, campaigns are over funded and it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court gave corporations more freedom to contribute. Personally, I believe that there needs to be TOTAL transparency when it comes to funding in political campaigns. No anonymity, no gift cards and just an overall cleaner process. As of right now all that seems like wishful thinking…..
ReplyDeleteKevin Pl. (FIU)
ReplyDeleteThe fact that corporations are now allowed to anonymously secure that their interests will be best represented is a shame to the democracy of this country. It allows corporations to sway the minds of the public, and effect our entire society. If individuals are limited to their contributing power, why shouldn't corporations be? this defeats the purpose of a truly representative government.
LaureenG (FIU)
ReplyDeleteSo we know that the best interest of the people will probably be at the bottom of the list now. Most politicians may be able to withstand the pressure to give into corporate interests. It is that small minority that will torpedo the interests of the people in favor of a corporation.
I do not think it is possible to separate the interest of the people from a debt owed to a corporation. Faced with the loss of that donation during the next election cycle, most politicians will probably look out for their own interests.
Tammy P. (FIU)
ReplyDeleteI must agree with other bloggers who disfavor the large amount of spending on smear campaigns this year. So much money is wasted in these campaigns, and the campaigns are sometimes exaggerated or falsified attacks on opponents. When Americans vote, it should be an informed decision. The vote should be based on the candidate’s policies and what the candidate is going to do to change these hard times we are experiencing. Also, now that corporations can donate large amounts of money to campaigns means that they have more influence over candidates then ever. This leads to dirty politics.
The free speech rights of corporations does not seem like the real issue here. Rather, the free speech of corporations has drowned out the speech of the voters. With the amount of money that corporations can spend on campaigns, the issues brought to the forefront are the hot button social issues that will catch voters' attention. Also, the special interests of the corporations will take on great importance. The issues that become important are the ones that voters see on television. Except for an informed minority, the rest of voters head to the polls based on these corporate-sponsored sound bites. It comes down to doing a little research and making an educated vote. But with Citizens United on the books, the prospect of that seems unlikely. So, whomever spends more and yells louder wins.
ReplyDeleteJULIE ST (FIU)
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that our country is now run by banks and large corporations. I wonder how the founding fathers would feel about this. At this point in time, how do we, as a country, make it right? There is one ray of hope, though... There are a lot more grass roots candidates coming out of the woodwork, and I believe that as people get more and more tired of the "big business candidates" the average Americans will start winning.