An anniversary to be mourned and a call to action

Published January 24, 2015

By Rob Schofield

by Rob Schofield, NC Policy Watch, January 21, 2015.

A ruinous national experiment enters its sixth year today

Despite its countless attributes and accomplishments, the United States has experienced more than its share of disastrous laws, political eras and policy experiments since its founding 238 years ago. It took 89 years to officially eradicate slavery and we’re still combating its poisonous legacy. The nonsense of the Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” doctrine lasted 58. Women were denied the right to vote for 144 years. Prohibition lasted 13. Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court’s horrific 1986 decision upholding a state’s right to criminalize consensual homosexual behavior between adults, took 17 years to reverse.

Seen in this light, today’s five-year anniversary of the catastrophic U.S. Supreme Court decision to confer broad First Amendment rights on state-created non-human entities, i.e. corporations, in the now infamous Citizens United v. FEC case is far from the worst self-inflicted wound that the United States has ever experienced. It is also certain not to be the last.

That said, there is also a rapidly growing mountain of reasons to mourn that decision today and to make use of the anniversary as a spur to urgent and sustained action. Today’s Weekly Briefing offers a quick look at some of them.

A brief refresher

For those who may have heard the reference to Citizens United a thousand times over the past five years without ever fully processing what the decision really did (and for those who may have simply banished the details from their brains as too painful to retain) here is a very quick refresher from a new report released last week by the good people at the Brennan Center for Justice:

“Five years ago in Citizens United v. FEC, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court upended a century of precedent to declare that corporations (and, by extension, labor unions) have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on elections….

At the time of the decision, many critics…predicted that political spending by for-profit corporations would explode, and election spending would skyrocket. By contrast, the Court majority and its supporters saw the decision as a critical victory for the First Amendment, arguing that the ban on direct corporate spending that the Court struck down had ‘muffled the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.’

Five years later, evidence from three national election cycles permits a more definitive assessment of how Citizens United has altered the landscape. A clear-eyed analysis shows that the impact of the case was significant and troubling, but not necessarily in the way many predicted in 2010, or even presume today.

Perhaps most important, the singular focus on the decision’s empowerment of for-profit corporations to spend in (and perhaps dominate) our elections may be misplaced. Although their influence has increased, for-profit corporations have not been the most visible beneficiaries of the Court’s jurisprudence. Instead — thanks to super PACs and a variety of other entities that can raise unlimited funds after Citizens United — the biggest money (that can be traced) has come from an elite club of wealthy mega-donors. These individuals — fewer than 200 people and their spouses — have bankrolled nearly 60 percent of all super PAC spending since 2010.

And while spending by this wealthy club has exploded, we have seen neither the increased diversity of voices that the Citizens United majority imagined, nor a massive upsurge in total election spending. In fact, for the first time in decades, the total number of reported donors has begun to fall, as has the total contributed by small donors (giving $200 or less). In 2014, the top 100 donors to super PACs spent almost as much as all 4.75 million small donors combined.”

The impact in North Carolina 

North Carolina has been anything but insulated from these toxic trends. Over the last few years big, dark money has flooded the state’s elections. As Chris Fitzsimon explained last October, immediately prior to the election:

“A new report from the Center for Public Integrity finds that State House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senator Kay Hagan had raised $30 million between them by the end of September, a staggering amount of money and a total that is surely to grow much larger when the October contributions are reported.

But that’s less than the $50 million the Center finds that outside political groups had reported spending on ads in the race by September 30, groups with no ties to the candidates or political parties, most of them from out of state.

Overall, the Hagan/Tillis race is on pace to cost more than $100 million with as much of two-thirds of it coming from special interests, not the two people asking for our votes.”

And it isn’t just in big races with national impact like the Tillis-Hagan tilt that were/are affected. The flood of outside bucks has inundated everything from the U.S. Senate race to the state Supreme Court to even the lowliest of state legislative races. Moreover, the skyrocketing incomes of the handful of families at the top of the wealth charts assures that the 2016 election will be significantly worse. It’s gotten so absurd that a few multibillionaires could literally finance the entire 2016 U.S. election without significantly impacting their own fortunes. As Fitzsimon noted:

“Something is terribly wrong here. The current system of electing people to serve in Raleigh and Washington is broken. The 2014 election has made that clearer than ever, regardless of how the high profile races turnout.”

What can be done?

In the near term, there is almost zero hope of ending this horrific lab experiment run amok. For now, America’s political (and economic) system is firmly in the pockets of a small band of plutocrats who have started to resemble the old money families that ruled Europe in the 19th Century. As economist Thomas Piketty wrote is his bestseller “Capital in the 21st Century,”

“The egalitarian pioneer ideal has faded into oblivion and the New World may be on the verge of becoming the Old Europe of the twenty-first century’s globalized economy.”

Happily, however, none of this is written in stone. For now, the tools remain to undo this assault on democracy.

Eighty years ago, when Americans saw the disastrous crime spree that had arisen as a result of the well-intentioned but failed experiment with Prohibition, they reversed course. Thirteen years after one constitutional amendment was ratified, another was passed to repeal it. The same thing can happen in the modern era.

A recent statement from the good government advocates at Common Cause put it this way:

“We can do better, and millions of us are trying. Last year, more than five million people have signed petitions demanding a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United and again give Congress and our state legislatures the ability to put sensible limits on political spending. Voters or legislators in 16 states and about 500 localities, with a total population of more than 120 million, also have called for an amendment; one of several draft amendments introduced in Congress got 54 votes – a clear majority – last September in the U.S. Senate.

The amendment would simply restore laws in place before Citizens United; it expressly protects freedom of the press and bars any attempt to restrict the content of one’s speech. The reasonable spending limits it would permit would make it possible to ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard but no one is able to drown out other speakers.”

And whether or not it ever gets that far – the possibility of a future Supreme Court restocked with a more fully rational group of justices acting to reverse the decision is also imaginable – there can be no doubt that loud and persistent activism by millions of caring and thinking individuals will be essential to making it happen. Let’s get to work.

- See more at: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2015/01/21/an-anniversary-to-be-mourned-and-used-as-a-call-to-action/#sthash.asWzBbOL.dpuf

January 24, 2015 at 10:44 am
Norm Kelly says:

The Citizens United decision irritates libs. So, it must be a good decision. Anything that irritates libs is a good thing.

Do libs believe unions are different from corporations? Yes. Do libs want to place limits on union donations? No. Will any constitutional amendment acceptable to libs put any curbs on unions at the same time it puts limits on corporations? No. So long as lib-supporting union allies are allowed to continue to spend unabated, libs will support any amendment or law that restricts businesses from making political donations. Libs have specifically stated that they would also like to prevent conservatives from making donations. Soros is NEVER mentioned in any context by a lib pol. Koch brothers are constantly mentioned, and derided, by libs for making political donations. The ever senile Harry has stated that he wants to limit Koch donations. I believe he's gone so far as to say he wants to prevent Koch money from entering politics at all. No such concern for unions. Wonder why?

Until libs get their own house in order, until libs start being even a little honest with American citizens, I don't care to listen to blatherings from lib pols or donors about how skewed conservatives have made the pool. Private enterprise does not create jobs. If you like your health insurance you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep it. Koch brothers are poison; unions don't contribute. The list of lies from the left, the list of shadow donors to lib organizations, the list of donors that libs don't want to restrict, are all so long as to be impossible to write about here.

Fortunately, it appears Civitas is keeping an eye on libs and their donors. Perhaps even if libs don't want us to know who they are protecting, Civitas will provide information for us. We can count on libs, lib pols, media ally types to only spread information and innuendo about Republican/conservative donors. The effort by Civitas must be applauded by all of us. The more light that is shined on political antics, the better it is for all of us. The more light, the better our chances for our Representative Republic to survive. The more we allow libs to make political decisions about things like donations, the less likely our Republic will survive and more likely that a democracy will result, where elites make the rules and actually rule over the masses. Kinda like what the current occupier envisions. And what limiting political donations would result in.

January 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
Richard Bunce says:

NC Policy Watch has never been more wrong on a topic.

Persons do not lose their First Amendment speech protections when speaking within a for profit corporate structure using corporate resources just as persons do not lose their First Amendment press protections when performing press functions within a for profit corporate structure using corporate resources. The original law struck down by the USSC CU decision only applied to for profit corporations... not the not for profit/nonprofit corporations like NC Policy Watch for instance.

There is no cause and effect here. Voters vote, money does not, TV ads do not. Campaign spending has clearly had no impact on the people that advocate within the corporate structure of NC Policy Watch using corporate resources. They do not all go out and vote Republican beyond their control. It must be the little people they think need their enlightened guidance/oversight.

Of course the billions being spent on campaigns are going to their friends in the media and in campaign related businesses... so crocodile tears here... but that has nothing to do with voters voting. Just ask Representative Cantor.

No doubt NC Policy Watch would want those billions to be confiscated by the Federal, State, and Local governments... taking a cut off the tape for the vast government election bureaucracy they envision and consultants on the enlightened ways of progressiveness of course... and then dolling it out to acceptable candidates for use in their campaign on government approved ads running on government approved media outlets.

NC Policy Watch cannot win the battle of ideas... so they want to get government to shut down any discussion of ideas they disagree with... the progressive utopia.

More speech is always better than less speech. Any speech is better than government regulated speech. The five most important words in the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." The majority on the USSC get that... more to come.

January 24, 2015 at 11:47 am
Richard Bunce says:

There is vote buying going on however... something NC Policy Watch fully embraces. Candidates promise large groups of voters government benefits/services to be paid for by other smaller groups of voters or better yet non voters. That is the progressive way.

January 24, 2015 at 2:43 pm
Frank Burns says:

If it's improper for corporations to donate money to politics, is also improper for unions to donate money to politics. If you stop one, you need to stop the other. Fair is fair.

January 25, 2015 at 1:41 pm
Rip Arrowood says:

Fair is fair...

"Labor unions must publicly disclose their political spending and, in some instances, face restrictions about seeking consent from their stakeholders before using political funds. Corporations do not face the same requirements."

January 26, 2015 at 2:14 pm
Frank Burns says:

What difference does disclosure have to do with the price of eggs? Money donated by corporations or unions should be treated equally. It would be improper to stop one without stopping the other.

January 27, 2015 at 9:58 am
Rip Arrowood says:

When Unions donate - we know who is donating, how much is being donated and that these donations have the approval of the Union membership.

A corporation can be set up solely for political donations that don't have any accounting as far as how much, who, or if if it is a legit corp., did the shareholders agree. But The GOP doesn't want this accountability. They want money regardless of the source....criminal, foreign or stolen from little old ladies....You wanted Voter ID to preserve the integrity of our elections. Why wouldn't you want accountability for donations?

January 27, 2015 at 6:24 pm
Richard Bunce says:

Money is not a vote. Money is not speaking. People are voting and to verify the US and State Constitutional requirements for voting positive ID must be obtained. People are speaking whether individually or as a group in a political party, labor union, non profit corporation, or for profit corporation.

All this misdirection away from your real issue... you do not like it when the voters vote from someone you don't like.

January 28, 2015 at 9:14 am
Frank Burns says:

The GOP doesn't want accountability with the implication that the Democrats do? What a joke! How about all those foreign contributions from Red China and India coming to Obama? What about George Soros undermining our journalism ethics by contributing to his points of views?

Obama and Democrats love those foreign donations and will do gyrations to make them continue.

January 28, 2015 at 10:17 am
Richard Bunce says:

Check out Mr. Soros living off of currency manipulation. I have no problem with it... I suspect Rip would if George was not "right on the issues."

January 24, 2015 at 4:25 pm
Rip Arrowood says:

All one needs to do is look up facts that clearly show the gains that Republicans have made on every level since Citizens United was passed. The amount of money contributed by donors masquerading as corporations has clearly shown that without the ruling Republicans can't win on a level playing field and have to have someone buy their positions instead of winning on ideology.

That is if facts mean anything to you.

January 25, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Richard Bunce says:

Ask Representative Cantor how that worked out for him?

If campaign money/ads are so powerful how come you do not vote Republican?

Folks clinging to your view just cannot face the fact that their fellow voters do not see things the same way and so there just must be something wrong with the system.

The far more insidious vote buying is when candidates promise large groups of voters government benefits/services to be paid for by other smaller groups of voters or better yet non voters.

January 26, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Rip Arrowood says:

Apparently you didn't look up the correlation with Citizen's United and Republican gains....or you did and just wanted to change the subject

January 27, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Richard Bunce says:

Using your very flawed correlation/causation argument the USSC CU ruling in 2010 was the reason President Obama was re-elected in 2012.

Representative Cantor significantly out raised and outspent his primary opponent last year and lost.

Your refusal to accept the informed actions of your fellow voters in post CU elections is not a basis for denying anyone their First Amendment protections.