Citizens Anything but United

“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning campaign finance. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.” Wikipedia. Happy 11th anniversary, Citizens United. Initially, Political Action Committees kicked into action, but SuperPacs soon dominated. As anonymous SuperPacs sprouted up, and while prohibited from operating under the direction and control of an active candidate, these campaign contribution aggregators reversed the pressure. They began telling candidates what to say… if they wanted their support. And tons and tons of negative ads!

 “Contributions to conventional PACs, which tend to be associated with specific companies or unions, are capped at $5,000 per donor… Only employees, executives, shareholders and their families can contribute to a company-connected PAC; the corporation itself can’t make a donation, though it can cover the PAC’s legal and administrative fees — and of course corporate managements effectively can control the PAC’s political contributions.

“Super PACs, however, are ‘mutant PACs that can raise, and then spend, unlimited amounts [of] money from corporations, unions and individuals on political advertisements, as long as they do not coordinate their spending with any candidate,’ as the Brennan Center described them in 2012… The court also left open a loophole allowing super PACs to keep their donors secret. That made a mockery of Kennedy’s almost childlike confidence that disclosure of donors’ identities would effectively inoculate the political system from corruption…

“The harvest of Citizens United was a torrent of super PAC financing of American elections. In the 2019-20 political cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, PACs made $529.3 million in political donations. Super PACs, however, donated $3.2 billion.” Michael Hiltzik writing for the January 13th Los Angeles Times.

Because of the mass of money SuperPacs made available – to embrace SuperPac support – candidates were actively altering their platforms to accommodate these highly biased behemoths. Otherwise, they turn off their support… sometimes even tilting against any candidate who opposed them. SuperPacs often cloaked where the money was really coming from. While such money could be found on both sides of the aisle, the contributions skewed heavily towards conservatives. Candidates also watched as this campaign funding flooded in vastly earlier than ever, well before primaries. With the bulk of those monies coming from business biggies or ultra-right-wing players who never used to be taken seriously, these contributions not only came with strings but severely contributed to the polarization of the nation. 

You may have heard Donald Trump, in his pre-Capitol insurrection speech, say, “You have to get your people to fight and if they don’t fight we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight… We’re going to let you know who they are.” Let me tell what he means by “primary the hell” out of Republicans who did not toe the line: in the next election, we will divert all that SuperPac money to your primary opponent who stands for what we tell them to stand for… and openly trash you. That is why congressional compromise is almost non-existent between the parties. Those who get the desired SuperPac money lock into a hard position and will not move.

There are moves, which may come to fruition with a Democratic Congress and administration, to increase donor transparency and impose serious restrictions on corporations making big contributions to these SuperPac. We’ll see. But here is what liberals might see as good news, but as we shall see, this silver lining has a cloud.  Hiltzik again:

“Reading the ever-lengthening list of big corporations reconsidering their political contributions in the wake of last week’s Republican-inspired insurrection on Capitol Hill, one might be tempted to think that a sea change in big-money influence on our elections is upon us.

“The roster certainly is eye-catching. More than two dozen public companies have announced that they’ll suspend all political donations for anywhere from a few months to the foreseeable future, or will cease funding for the 147 Republican senators and House members who objected to the certified results of the electoral college… Among them are American Express, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Coca-Cola, Citibank and AT&T. (Judd Legum’s Popular Information newsletter is maintaining an up-to-date list.)

“You should hold your applause, for several reasons.

“One is that many of these donors enthusiastically bankrolled some of the politicians now in their hall of shame for years while it was obvious that they were working against the public interest by supporting gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression… The companies are professing to see things in a new light after the consequences of their support became graphic with the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill. But they can’t cleanse themselves of the stink now any more than the Trump administration figures abandoning his sinking ship.” If nothing else, it shows the power of money on even the most firmly held political positions. It is so clear that elected politicians are openingly and legally “for sale.”

The impact of this withdrawal of money was immediate. Super-Trumper and House GOP Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, dramatically reversed his position, stating on the floor of the House that Trump “bears responsibility” for the assault on the Capitol… echoing parallel statements by Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Money doesn’t just talk. It commands. 

This is as clear an example of legalized corruption as it gets. Big SuperPac money calls the shots, particularly for the GOP… The ruling gave manufactured contribution machines the same status as human beings under the First Amendment. Given the conservative bent of the current Supreme Court, we are unlikely to see a reversal of Citizens United vs FEC… but there is little doubt that the decision enabled and legitimized corruption, seared extreme polarization into the American body politic and handed the rich more election power than they had ever had before… all at the expense of the rest of us.

I’m Peter Dekom, and if there is one Supreme Court decision that has split this nation into what well may be irreconcilable differences, it is Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission.