“Every week, we meet here at Burt’s. Together, we represent the chief spokespeople for the tobacco, alcohol, and firearms industries. We call ourselves the MOD Squad. M-O-D. The Merchants of Death.” — Thank You For Smoking
Lobbyists are everywhere in Washington. They push the agendas of major corporations at the expense of the individual voice in the legislative process. Corporations have always been allowed to hire lobbyists to influence politicians to vote in a way that favor them. But now, corporations have an even better way to influence the political machine: direct campaign finance.
The Decision
Corporations can buy elections, because corporations have the right to free speech. In last week’s landmark decision, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that funding of “independent political broadcasts” could not be limited because it limited free speech.
Now, for-profit and not-for-profit corporations can provide advertising 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election. They’re required to disclose who is placing the ad, of course, but they can still pour all the money they want into the political campaign of whichever politicians will probably defend their interests.
The decision overturned Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which said that corporations couldn’t use money to buy ads because corporate money “influences elections”.
Why?
It’s a widely known fact that Wall Street runs Washington (or this is at least a pretty popular conspiracy theory), but now they have to do it out in the open. By allowing them to sponsor politicians through campaign ads, they’re essentially branding themselves in a new way. They are accountable on a public relations level to their consumers for aligning themselves with a particular politician.
The Bill of Rights says that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. But it never specifies that the right applies only to individuals, so under an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution, corporations can’t be barred from political speech, whatever methods they choose to use.
What’s wrong with it?
McDonald’s can now sponsor a Congressman to vote down a bill that bans trans fats from restaurants or mandates nutrition facts be posted in all locations. By putting their fiscal muscle behind specific candidates by buying ads, corporations can essentially buy a politician — and condition their support on that politician voting their way.
Some say that the ruling is biased against Democrats, because historically big business has supported more conservative candidates while blue-collar institutions such as workers unions have been on the side of liberals. President Obama called it a “victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and other powerful interests,” but some don’t seem to agree.
It sucks that McDonald’s and Altria (née Phillip Morris) can buy off elected officials, but what’s worse is that it’s not just American companies that now control who gets elected. The ruling extends to international companies: all they have to do is do business in the U.S. So the same companies that are making your leaded-up toys and fake Louis Vuittons can also have more sway with your congressman than you do.
Could it be right?
Some say that this ruling empowers the little man, the small business owner. It technically gives the right to advertise to every mom-and-pop shop, teachers’ union, and even Green Peace to run ads for the candidate they support. But the problem here is that the media will be dominated by large corporations: those that have the profit margins and incentives to spend millions or billions pushing a politician who will vote in their interest. The $500 that Sam’s Hardware can afford to spend won’t exactly seem meaningful next to JP Morgan Chase’s $500 million.
Even the Trib is behind the decision, saying that now organizations like the ACLU and NRA can openly support their candidates right up until election day.
And it could help lesser well-known candidates, those not on the Republican or Democratic tickets. Candidates that don’t quite fit into what a major party thinks could be successful now have more options to get their platform out to the public.
The Aftermath
Democrats are now trying to come up with legislation to minimize the damage, but there isn’t a lot of hope that much can be done. Even though the new ruling overturned a few precedents, it would take another case large enough for something to be changed now.
With this decision, it has become more important than ever to listen to those annoying “Paid for by ……” at the end of political ads. Instead of assuming that the government will regulate who is paying for the messages we hear about a candidate, people will have to have their own filter.