The Center for Responsive Politics revealed Thursday that corporate campaign spending has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission decision in January 2010. The report comes at the same time as the first major state-level challenge to the controversial ruling.
In the run-up to the 2008 election, Citizens United, a conservative organization that has since aligned itself with the tea party, produced an attack film with the on-the-nose title Hillary: The Movie. When a D.C. court ruled that advertising and widely screening Hillary would be a violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, Citizens United took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ultimately determined that corporate expenditures on “electioneering” constitute a form of protected free speech, and that neither state nor federal law can bar corporations or non-profits from using general treasury funds to support or oppose a candidate. At the time, former U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who lost his re-election bid in 2010 to tea partier Daniel Webster, called Citizens United “the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”
The Center for Responsive Politics now finds that, following the Citizens United decision, midterm spending on campaign ads and electioneering efforts by outside interest groups (including corporations, nonprofit interest groups and unions) has quadrupled. Moreover, 72 percent of spending for ads around the 2010 election came from groups that were legally barred from such spending before the Court made its decision. Although unions and liberal nonprofits have taken advantage of the ruling, outside spending from conservative groups is where the true growth has occurred. In 2010, election spending from conservative groups without direct party connections was up nearly 10 times what it was during the last midterm election cycle. At $190.5 million, it was also nearly double the $98.6 million that non-party-affiliated liberal groups spent on the 2010 election. [Read more]
The U.S. Supreme Court will today hear the first challenge since the 1970s to laws regarding public financing systems for political campaigns. OpenSecrets Blog will be at the Court’s chambers covering the oral argument, but for now, here’s a synopsis of the case at hand:
The Case: McComish v. Bennett
The Issue: Arizona’s public financing system is set up to award an initial grant to participating candidates. Then, over the course of the election, additional funds — up to two times the initial amount — can be doled out to participating candidates. These so-called matching funds are allocated when certain spending thresholds are crossed by either privately funded candidates in the race or outside special interest groups that make independent expenditures in opposition to a publicly funded candidate (or in support of his or her opponent). In this legal challenge, the constitutionality of these triggers is being called into question.
The Supremes: Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has leaned toward deregulation when it comes to campaign finance issues. A 5-4 majority, led by Roberts, created a political firestorm in January last year when it overturned prohibitions on corporate money funding political advertisements in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. In 2008, a 5-4 majority of the court also rejected a campaign finance regulation known as the “Millionaires’ Amendment” in Davis v. Federal Election Commission. [Read more]
In the first big campaign finance case since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion last year in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court will hear arguments on Monday in McComish v. Bennett. McComish is a critical test for the Roberts Court. Will it tolerate, or will it kill off, Arizona’s public financing law, put in place to control corporate and special interest influence over the electoral process? Public financing is one of the last, best protections against corruption available in the wake of Citizens United.
In Citizens United, a bitterly-divided Supreme Court gutted key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, ruling by a 5-4 vote that corporations have a right to spend unlimited sums in candidate elections, effectively allowing corporations to drown out the voices of individual Americans. The majority in Citizens United sharply departed from our Constitution’s text and history. Corporations are never mentioned in the Constitution, they cannot vote in elections, stand for election, or serve as elected officials, but the Court in Citizens United ruled they can overwhelm the political process using profits generated by the special privileges — such as perpetual life and limited liability — granted to corporations alone.
The McComish case could be the next shoe to drop, or, perhaps, a turning point by the Court back toward fair elections and the Constitution. The Court will consider the constitutionality of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, a thoughtful effort to deter both the appearance and the reality of campaign corruption by providing matching funds to participating candidates to ensure they can run a competitive race, even against a privately-financed candidate with huge reserves or a candidate with the support of corporate special interests. In a brief representing constitutional law scholars Bruce Ackerman of Yale, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard, Fordham’s Zephyr Teachout and UCLA’s Adam Winkler, my organization, Constitutional Accountability Center, argues that the Court should uphold Arizona’s law — not least because the Framers were obsessed with the possibility of our elected officials being corrupted by special interests. The Framers did all they could to make sure public servants in fact represent “We the People.” [Read more]
Happy Birthday, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission!
You’re one year old today, big boy. But just think of all the fine things you’ve done already:
[Read more]
Feingold, who believed that those with money and power should not “drown out the voices of average Americans,” was best known for legislation that banned large donations to candidates and political parties.
The Wisconsin Democrat was defeated in November in a midterm election that saw more than $400 million spent nationally by tax-exempt organizations collecting large checks, often from undisclosed donors.
Feingold’s departure is a source of cheer to conservative activists who saw his approach to regulating money as unwieldy and unconstitutional. And they applaud the recent freedom granted by the Supreme Court to corporate and union contributors — and they have their own agenda for further undoing Feingold’s legacy.
Feingold’s allies, while acknowledging they face a tough fight, say they have a three-part plan for 2011: Push legislation that would end the secret-money loophole by requiring groups to disclose their donors; seek aggressive enforcement of Internal Revenue Service rules governing political groups that operate as “social welfare organizations”; and fight lawsuits and legislative proposals that could further undermine regulatory gains made during Feingold’s years in the Senate. [Read more]
Former Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor recently appeared to come to a similar conclusion about the majority decision reached by their former colleagues in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Committee earlier this year: it was a “mistake.”
In an interview between the two in Newsweek, Stevens, who stood on the dissenting side of Citizens United, characterized the final decision in the case as a failure that he would like to see readdressed:
O’Connor: I suppose the court has had occasion to change its view on certain issues over a period of years. Do you see any on the horizon that you think the court might well reexamine as things go on?Stevens: Well, you know, Sandra, I dissented in a lot of cases, and I’d like [the court] to reexamine them all [laughs]. I don’t expect them to, but I think they made a serious mistake in the [Citizens United] campaign-finance case, in which they overruled the portion of an opinion you and I jointly authored [on the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law]. And I think you might share my view. [Read more]
The Supreme Court has decided to review a 1998 Arizona law which provides public financing to qualified candidates. This decision will likely define the constitutional boundaries of public financing laws across the country.
Critics claim programs that provide public funding for candidates are welfare for politicians, that the public should not be forced to support candidates with whom they disagree, and that public funds could be better spent in other areas. Proponents, on the other hand, contend that these programs provide qualified candidates who may not have access to campaign funds with the opportunity to run competitive campaigns, allow candidates to spend time with all of their constituents and not just those who can provide campaign donations, reduce corruption or the appearance of corruption, either of which may arise as a result of private contributions, and increase public confidence in their elected officials.
In an effort to allow publicly financed candidates to remain competitive in the face of heavy opposition spending from privately financed opponents or independent expenditure groups, many public campaign finance laws provide so-called “rescue funds.” These rescue fund provisions now stand on constitutionally shaky ground because of the Court’s 2008 decision in Davis v. FEC. [Read more]
Pity the campaign finance reform activist. For years he’s fought to wring big money out of politics and shine a spotlight on who’s funding campaigns. But less than a decade after that shining moment for the campaign finance reform movement, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known as McCain-Feingold after its two chief Senate sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold), its successes are unraveling and its prospects look dimmer by the day.
The 2010 elections will likely see more than $300 million spent by conservative independent groups who disclose little or nothing about their donors. (Pro-Democratic unions will spend perhaps half that, though their funds come from rank-and-file members, not outside donors.) That comes on the heels of a January 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, which declared that corporations and unions are entitled to spend their money on direct electioneering — meaning to help or defeat candidates — as a function of their free speech. Campaign reformers say the Citizens United decision has effectively served as a green light for a new torrent of corporate cash that’s being funneled in the political system through intermediary groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which take advantage of legal loopholes to keep their donors anonymous. [Read more]
The intense focus placed on the money being spent in the 2010 elections has had an unexpected impact within the small the world of campaign finance reformers. While the delicate system of fundraising constraints born in the wake of Watergate has crumbled — allowing for the unprecedented flow of corporate and even anonymous funds — the chaos has also created a modicum of opportunity. The current climate, campaign finance reformers say, may be one of the most opportune moments to spur the reform of the system.
“This is a crisitunity,” said Sheila Krumholz, Executive Director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that reports on money in politics. “This may be the beginning of the post Citizens United chapter in history which replaces scrutiny and limits with emphasis on free speech. And that might bolster a passionate response from the public to strengthen and reinvigorate disclosure and even limits to try and counter what the courts have done.” [Read more]
The only sure things in life, Benjamin Franklin should have said, are death, taxes and campaign-finance reform. Trying to keep money out of politics is like trying to keep a basement dry in New Orleans, which made the issue a perfect subject for the Supreme Court: nothing revs up Justices like a symbolic fight over an intractable issue. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court struck down certain limits on corporate campaign spending–upholding the First Amendment or selling American politics into bondage, depending on your view.
Some backstory: in 2008 the conservative nonprofit Citizens United produced the anti-Clinton film Hillary: The Movie and arranged to distribute it using money from the group’s corporate treasury rather than from its political-action committee–a crucial distinction under the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reforms of 2002. In a 5-4 ruling, the court found that distinction unconstitutional. If freedom of speech protects the right of individuals to air their political views, it decided, then that right extends to incorporated groups–like businesses, labor unions, Planned Parenthood and Citizens United.
The case sparked a clash of worldviews. “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. A law declaring who can say what about elected officials, and how and when, did not pass muster. On the other side, Justice John Paul Stevens’ 90-page dissent spoke admiringly of McCain-Feingold and shuddered to imagine the influence that big corporations and Big Labor might exercise over politics in the absence of such efforts. The ruling, he wrote, “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.” [Read more]
WASHINGTON - Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a rare, out-of-term rehearing of a case justices set aside from last term that could flip campaign finance law on its head.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will determine how much influence corporations can exert in political campaigns. If the justices ultimately decide to rule against precedent, says Rick Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School Los Angeles, it will “open up the floodgates of money in federal elections.” No surprise, then, that the business community, labor unions, numerous advocacy groups, 26 states and the District of Columbia, several congressmen and two U.S. senators have all weighed in.
Corporations and labor unions are allowed to contribute to political action committees, but for more than a century, Uncle Sam has curbed their direct spending to influence elections. In 2002, Congress passed the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, banning certain corporately funded broadcasts just before an election and requiring disclosure of most corporate funding for ads. In a decision the next year, the court bolstered the law and upheld a 1990 decision limiting corporate influence.
But the justices may be about to change course, due to the debate surrounding the 2008 documentary film Hillary: the Movie, an unflattering portrayal of Hillary Clinton, then a presidential candidate.
In simplified terms, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced the movie and wanted to offer it as a video on demand, in addition to its appearances in theaters. It also wanted to run ads promoting the film. A federal district court determined that federal regulators couldn’t ban the ads (as long as they adhered to disclosure requirements), but they could ban the film. If that’s the case, argued Citizens United, it’s an intrusion on the right to free speech.
The case has created an unlikely group of allies and adversaries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business community’s lobby in Washington, says the law’s disclosure requirements have a “suppressive effect” on First Amendment expression. The AFL-CIO argues that the court’s previous decisions on the matter have created an “unworkable censorship regime” that can be remedied only by reversing parts of the 2003 decision.
Others, like the American Independent Business Alliance, argue that business and individuals are inherently different and that corporations don’t enjoy the same interpretation of free expression under the First Amendment that people do.
Since the court rarely hears a case unless it wants to clarify a confusing aspect of law or overturn a previous decision, the John Roberts court may be poised to overturn several aspects of its 2003 decision and perhaps the 1990 decision as well, some analysts have argued.
If that happens, the justices would be making a legal statement at an awkward time politically. For the past year, lawmakers have excoriated regulators for allowing companies like Citigroup, American International Group and Bank of America for getting too big to fail. Handing companies more power to influence the political process would be unpopular, to say the least.
Corporations already play a prominent role in campaign funding. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and Citigroup were among the top donors to Democrat Barack Obama’s successful bid for the presidency last year. Republican candidate John McCain’s top three contributors were Merrill Lynch (now owned by Bank of America), Citi and Morgan Stanley.
If after hearing Citizens United v. FEC, the court reverses previous decisions, Hasen predicts it’s unlikely that businesses will directly support one candidate or another.
“That could be bad for the corporate image,” he says. Instead, contributions will likely get funneled through organizations like the U.S. Chamber, which can direct it to any number of purposes. But it’s also likely that parties and candidates will hit up companies for political donations more frequently.
“The question is more about extortion than bribery,” jokes Hasen.