A reader of my last post asked if I had written my comments about the power of constituency prior to or after the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform. I wrote it after.
To be sure, the Supreme Court’s decision will make pre-election television watching and radio listening a horrible experience for all Americans. How happy I was on November 5, 2008, to turn my television back on and not hear 30-second advertisements that presented a biased set of “facts” and an inflated set of promises. How hard it will be for those sitting in the White House today to endure the reruns of those advertisements during the next campaign when Americans are asked to distinguish between those things that were promised and those that were delivered.
But in truth, the most detestable and intolerable of all of those advertisements came not from corporate interests, or even the candidates themselves, but instead from nonprofit, issue-advocacy groups known as 527′s. These tax-exempt groups do not provide direct support for candidates, but instead try to advance their position on issues through extensive media campaigns. Although the line between issue and candidate advocacy is often times very blurred, these groups are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission since they do not make direct contributions to candidates or campaigns. As such, it is these groups who run the most antagonistic, biased, and perhaps influential media blitzes. These groups have nothing to lose and everything to gain by running slanted advertisements that make a mockery of our political system, distort our problems, and oversimplify the solutions.
Companies, on the other hand, have a lot to lose by engaging in the extreme tactic of negative 30-second advertisements that favor or attack a particular candidate. Corporate leaders depend upon good working relationships with people on both sides of the aisle and are cognizant of the positions that their employees, shareholders, and customers might take on the full range of issues. They need to carefully balance their political and policy interests with those of their employees and the public at large, so the winner-take-all game of negative-campaign advertisement is simply too risky for most companies.
In fact, a careful look at the data reveals that corporate PAC giving tends to be fairly balanced among the political parties. So the mythology that corporate giving always benefits the right, or that companies are the largest campaign contributors who end up buying the greatest influence in the process is almost as inaccurate as the belief that corporate interests are automatically and necessarily in direct opposition to public interests. Most people in the world don’t have tenure and, therefore, understand the importance of corporate success to their personal (and our national) economic future.
While some believe that campaign contributions are the evil tool of the corporate right, a quick review of the data posted on opensecrets.org reveals that the largest direct contributions during the 2008 presidential election were made to the Obama campaign by the employees of the University of California, Goldman Sachs, Harvard University, Microsoft, and Goggle. I don’t think that UC or Harvard employees think of themselves as members of traditional corporate-interest groups, nor do the employees of Microsoft and Goggle, yet their contributions exceeded those of the traditional and much maligned boogeymen of the corporate world. Still, the University of California’s $1.6-million was dwarfed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which spent over $27-million on advertisements intended to encourage support for candidate Barack Obama and another $3-million on advertisements intended to discourage support for John McCain. In truth, big money in the last election was more likely to come from groups that supported candidates on the left than on the right, and among those that spent the most were 527 groups as well as single-issue PAC’s and unions, not corporate interest groups or corporate PAC’s.
While we can all whine about the role that political campaign contributions play in our form of democracy, let us remember that while candidates McCain and Obama both pledged to run campaigns based on public financing, thereby eliminating the pressure associated with campaign contributions, only one candidate remained true to the promise. That Americans fall prey to the 30-second advertisement isn’t the fault of the sponsor so much as it is the fault of the people who consider paid advertising to be a reliable source of information.
21 Responses to Does the Supreme Court’s Ruling Change the World?
suomynona - February 2, 2010 at 9:38 am
The idea of Americans considering paid advertising a reliable source of information is a very interesting one. I would like to say this is true, being a cynic and a malcontent. But I’m not sure exactly why paid advertisements (for politics and/or for stupid products that nobody would want without advertising–products of no value) work or could ever come off as reliable (only that they must work, if people keep throwing mounds of money into them). Maybe it’s not a rational or concious thought process that makes us buy diet food from Dan Marino or talking points from Bobby Jindal. But I have a hunch that training students into careerist robots doesn’t help our national information-digestion situation.The rest of this article is typically myopic. The issue really isn’t whether special interests give to Dems or Repubs, but that they give to both indiscriminately so long as it buys them political influence. I mean, I don’t know why the health insurance lobby, for example, would give *all* of its money to Republicans with the same agenda as the industry; surely they would (and have) pump money into the red-state Democrats or the Blue Dogs to throw a wrench in reform. Either way, it’s the lack of regulation of this process, which is a function in large part of certain court rulings, that causes the problems. I don’t care if it’s Dems or Repubs getting all that money from AT&T; I care that all that money is such a major part of the process in the first place. If it weren’t beneficial–if it weren’t drawing influence directly for money–then no corporation or interest would be coughing up so much money.The way this gets coded as a Republican thing–big donations support Republicans–is because Republicans avidly support this process while Democrats decry it. Maybe the Dems are just disingenuous in their denouncement of the recent SCOTUS decision; maybe the Repubs are just utopian in their thinking about the first amendment. But either way it sucks; and either way DAJ attempted to defend its suckiness in her previous article. And this one isn’t much better. The SCOTUS decision does change the world, in the same way that a different decision in the Tiller case would have changed the world: it ratifies something insidious; it gives legitimacy to something rotten.
winchestereast - February 2, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Corporate money invested in local campaigns will create huge advantages for conservative candidates at all levels of government -it will be the Club for Growth writ large in every election, from boards of education to the presidency – an America brought to you by your friendly Chamber of Commerce – pollsters and hucksters and message massagers scored big on this decision – Sir Rupert should have saved his money and let the corporations buy the Media for him – are we having fun yet?
lexalexander - February 2, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Having covered politics, including a number of issues pertaining to campaign finance, for most of the past 25 years, the best thing I can say about the new ruling is that, fortunately for corporate stockholders, a lot of politicians are still selling out for unbelievably low rates.That said, it is disingenuous to claim that this ruling will result in anything but a national agenda dictated by a relatively few, very large corporations at the expense not only of individual voters/consumers but also most small and medium-sized businesses.True, the ruling treats corporations and labor unions technically alike, but that’s sort of like a law barring kings and paupers alike from sleeping under bridges. Corporate profits last year among the Fortune 500 alone totaled roughly three quarters of a trillion dollars, which simply dwarfs the total of roughly $5.3B spent on all federal election campaigns — president, House and Senate. Exxon alone earned $45B in ’08 (albeit that figure dropped by more than half in ’09). Goldman Sachs alone plans to spend $16.7 billion on employee compensation. The SEIU and the World Wildlife Federation and their ilk are badly outgunned.This flood of corporate money will weaken consumer and worker health, safety and financial protections and affect everything from pharmaceutical research to ‘Net neutrality, almost certainly in ways that will favor the large over the small, corporations over individuals and very large corporations over the vast numbers of small businesses that create most of this country’s new jobs.The idea that corporations are legally persons is a fiction dreamed up by a clerk in the 1880s, attached as a legally meaningless preface to a court ruling and ever after treated as dictum. The idea that money = speech, the tenet enshrined in Buckley v. Valeo, shows what happens when you lack enough English majors on the court. Money isn’t speech, it’s the volume knob on a megaphone, turned up to 11 forever so that other voices are drowned out. There’s a constitutional right to free speech but no such right to an audience, a fact our jurists blithely ignore.How bad is this going to be? Banana republic: You’re soaking in it.
livefreeordie2 - February 2, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Most of the handwringing seems to be the fear that corporate money is going to somehow purchase everything. Frankly, that fear seems to emanate most directly from a fear that liberals will lose the edge they currently have. Personally, I think that’s wrong. There are just as many loony leftist corporate types as there are conservatives and things will balance out. But as far as I’m concerned, that whole discussion misses the point entirely. The most important element of Citizens United v FEC is the idea that elected officials cannot determine who may and who may not participate in political speech. I realize that many of those who read the Chronicle believe fervently that the Founding Fathers authored the First Amendment solely to ensure that later generations could put crucifixes in bottles of urine and call it art, but shockingly, that’s not true. It’s to protect political speech. The American people have the right to get their information from any source. It’s their job to sort through the many voices and determine with whom they agree. By their very nature, liberals believe the great unwashed are too stupid to do the right thing. . .to make the right decision. . . and so prefer to tailor available information as much as possible to insure the people get the “truth.” This ruling wipes away restrictions put in place to protect incumbents and limit the available information. And that can only be a good thing.And for those that contend that money isn’t speech, let me say this. I live in New Hampshire. We strongly value “retail politics.” But this isn’t about donating to candidates, is it? This is about individuals making their views known. It’s about my right, individually or as part of a group, to say that my elected official has good ideas or bad within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. And if my congressman stands for public polices that I think will harm my business or my customers, I have the right, individually or as part of a group. to inform the voters. That idea that someone could be fined or jailed for saying that congressman X supports or opposes a policy is intuitively at odds with the first amendment and the USSC did absolutely the right thing in overturning clearly unconstitutional statutes. In an open society, more free speech is always better than less free speech.
suomynona - February 2, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I agree entirely that more free speech is always better than less free speech. Protecting speech costs money (in the form of the judicial system costs that facilitate the protecting and upholding of that right), but speaking does not. I’m not sure if there will ever be a constitutional way around people spending immense amounts of money on television ads, unless we could start enforcing false advertising in that case (something that should be enforced much more stringently and more frequently than it is now). But that’s not what Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC were about. These cases and rulings were about money being considered the equivalent of speech (which it’s not) and people being allowed to give unlimited amounts of money to election campaigns as speech. The absurdity of such a ruling that amounts to money = speech is that election campaign donors aren’t actually using money AS speech, but using it INSTEAD of speech. Were they to do the former, they could take out ad spots and start a lobbying organization to get the word out. But instead they forego their right of speech and simply give money to another organization, a political campaign, to speak for itself under the assumption that the candidate or campaign’s speech will align with the speech that the donor withheld. Again, we have the right to speech; but buying a venue for the speech of others doesn’t amount to one’s own constitutionally protected speech. To limit such donations would not at all limit the speech of the donor; if anything, it would force the donor to exercise his or her speech rights instead of throwing money at a candidate.
livefreeordie2 - February 2, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Okay. I’m glad you agree regarding free speech. I don’t, however, know what you are talking about with regard to Citizens United v. FEC allowing unlimited donations to political campaigns. As far as I can tell, all the decision did was overturn a decision of the FEC that prohibited a movie from being on TV and struck down portions of McCain-Feingold that prohibited third parties from “electioneering communication” prior to primary and general elections. In other words, the decision removes restriction on freedom of speech for individuals, corporations, non-profits, and unions. My bet is that among those four groups, there will be plenty of free speech to represent all points of view.As for your suggestion that those who have the money to purchase air time or whatever venue should be prohibited, well. . . the old phrase was something about this being “a free country.” Are you suggesting that newspapers be closed? That broadcasting companies be shut down? They were exempt from the provisions of McCain-Feingold that put a gag on everyone else. Why should those corporations get to express an opinion, but not others? And again, you keep saying that this decision allows corporations to throw money at candidates. From what I’ve read, this ruling does not change in any way the restrictions on donating to campaigns – it only eliminates restrictions on speech. You may not like certain speech and I may not like some other speech, but that’s precisely why this ruling was correct. You don’t have to protect speech that everyone likes.
dank48 - February 3, 2010 at 8:40 am
Okay, corporations are “persons” with the right to free speech. Fine.Do those “persons” have the right to vote? To marry? T fill-in-the-blank? Take it to a real extreme. In Indiana, it’s possible to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon on one’s person, after a background check of course. Assuming that a corporate “person” doesn’t have a felony record, can it be issued a license to carry on its . . . ? Oh, that’s a problem: the “person” does not have a person at all.I suspect most people share that sense of relief from the moron messages the day after the election. Actually, we should be grateful for the chance to become familiar with the candidates, thanks to the messages. We know what familiarity breeds, and generally speaking I think that’s the right attitude toward politicians. Maybe it’s just nitwitted optimism on my part, but I think relatively few people fall for the “truthiness” of paid advertising. On the other hand, I have heard “It’s spoken of very highly in the advertisements,” so maybe I’m wrong.
suomynona - February 3, 2010 at 11:33 am
The majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC operated on the previous ruling that money = speech (perhaps correctly, though the initial ruling that money = speech was preposterous; but it wasn’t that court’s job to overturn that earlier ruling), and then that corporations, as ‘associations of people,’ have the the right of free speech. There being no clause in the first amendment about how much speech, or limitations on the quantity of speech, and money being cosidered as speech from the previous court ruling, the court ruled in CU v. FEC that if corporations have the right to speech and money is speech and there is no limitation on speech then there can be no limitation on money-as-speech, or political donations. This is basically a crappy paraphrasing of Scalia’s defense of the ruling in response to Stevens’ scathing dissenting opinion. The simple result is that corporations can donate as much money as they want to political campaigns, as though they were individuals.With respect to the corporate press and the right to speech, that’s covered under freedom of the press, so a corporate press is not the same as a corporation. And again, if a corporation wants to spend the daylights out of its bank account to create its own effective press, it may do so. But that’s different than simply giving money to a political campaign. Somethign else to consider: rights such as free speech are considered inalienable, a priori. A corporation is not an a priori entity (like a human); a corporation is a legal entity. A corporation doesn’t just come into being; it’s chartered into being. And no corporation can become a corporation without a legal charter. So the standards for corporate entities are different, our ought to be, than those for individuals. Corporations have special rights that individuals do not, and this is the case so that entrepreneurs can do their thing without taking on the kind of *personal* risk that growing a corporation mandates. For example, if I own a corporation sells a half a million cars that spontaneously combust, killing a million people, the ensuing class action lawsuit isn’t lodged against me personally, aimed at my car, my house, my children’s college fund, etc. (like I’ll ever have any of those things..ha). It’s aimed at the corporation. This is a special privilege, like separate tax rules/breaks, etc., for corporations. Individuals don’t get these things. So what it comes down to is that if you want to treat a corporation like an individual, then the corporation would have to be treated as such across the board: no tax breaks or protecdtive tax rules, no protection from personal lawsuits, etc. That’s the main problem with the court ruling: it doesn’t account for the proper legal boundaries that exist between corporations and individuals, boundaries that give corporations certain extra freedoms in exchange for certain legal limitations (like political donations, for example…until recently).
lexalexander - February 3, 2010 at 12:48 pm
[[Frankly, that fear seems to emanate most directly from a fear that liberals will lose the edge they currently have. Personally, I think that's wrong. There are just as many loony leftist corporate types as there are conservatives and things will balance out.]] — livefreeordie2– I’ve been a Red State Republican for 1978. I base my predictions on how I’ve seen the system work up ’til now, which is to say, largely to the benefit of corporations even with the current spending caps in place. No, there are NOT “just as many leftist corporate types as there are conservatives.” There are corporate types who contribute to both parties to hedge their bets, but that’s not the same thing, and if you’ll recall, after the ’94 GOP takeover of Congress, Republicans put a great deal of pressure on political contributors to cut off the Democrats and on lobbying shops to fire their Democratic employees — Tom DeLay’s famous “K Street Project.” So, no, things will NOT balance out. Also, anyone who thinks liberals have an edge is living in la-la land. On every important piece of legislation or government initiative over the past 20+ years, with the possible exception of the Americans with Disabiilties Act, the liberals have gotten their rear ends handed to them.[[The most important element of Citizens United v FEC is the idea that elected officials cannot determine who may and who may not participate in political speech.]] — livefreeordie2No, the most important element is that the ruling gives more rights and fewer responsibilities to corporations — which are not recognized in the Constitution even though, or BECAUSE, the Framers knew all too well what they were and the dangers they posed — than it does to individual citizens.Relatedly, money is NOT speech. It can be used to create speech, but most political expenditures go for advertising, which is buying an audience, not creating speech. Nowhere does the First Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, guarantee the right to an audience.[[From what I've read, this ruling does not change in any way the restrictions on donating to campaigns - it only eliminates restrictions on speech.]] — livefreeordie2No, it does not change the restrictions on donating to campaigns, but it does eliminate the limit on what you or, more importantly, a corporation, can spend for or against particular candidates, which renders the remaining restriction pretty much irrelevant.I’m all for more freedom of speech — FROM INDIVIDUALS, individuals who have certain obligations to this country and to their fellow citizens that corporations simply, and quite smugly, do not.
louisie - February 3, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Um . . . . I’m sure you and the Chronicle editors proofread, and everything, but don’t you mean GOOGLE, not GOGGLE? You repeat “Goggle” twice in the piece.Just FYI. I have no comment about the content.
maa0162 - February 6, 2010 at 2:43 am
What an interesting post!!Why is this higher ed blog always about politics? I suppose it matters not because I find it interesting too(sometimes anyway). The only reason one would worry about any of this, would be if one thinks that their fellow Americans are stupid. You know what you think. I know what I think. But what about those large masses of the “uneducated” who do not live and work at universities?They know what they think as well.The fear of speech is the fear of people. The fear of people is the fear of freedom. The fear of freedom is what makes progressive power seeking individuals very dangerous. Freedom is very scary business for many people; but I will take freedom any day of the week!History will affirm what I have said here.
suomynona - February 7, 2010 at 9:37 am
This has absolutely nothing to do with ‘fear of speech’ or ‘fear of people,’ but perhaps with fear that certain interpretations of what constitutes speech (e.g. money) undermines freedom of actual speech, and undermines the democracy that underwrites all of these grandiose claims about freedom to begin with.
maa0162 - February 8, 2010 at 12:58 am
I never knew that truth claims became valid based on how much money the truth claimer had in their wallet!!What is further, if you feel that it is the amount of money which determines personal freedom, I feel very, very sorry for you.I hope I never have to live in that world.I will think for myself. I want to hear everything. If someone can purchase the rights to make me hear their pont of view a million times, I will just laugh that much harder when I disagree (i.e. Obama).I want it all, because, as Little Richard used to say, “the people want it all or none!!…Make my big toe shoot up in my boot!!”
maa0162 - February 8, 2010 at 1:17 am
Sorry…I wanted to add this to my last post but forgot; politics will distract.The L.A. Kings are going for 10 in a row tomorrow. Do you think they need to trade for a d-man or a left winger at this point? The political stuff is cool, but real life has a way of intruding from time to time!!
suomynona - February 8, 2010 at 8:20 am
“What is further, if you feel that it is the amount of money which determines personal freedom, I feel very, very sorry for you.”If you think that upholding your personal freedom or that of anyone else doesn’t cost the state money, you might want to think again. And if you think that money doesn’t affect individual freedom, or that money cannot be used to limit the freedom of others, or to coerce others, or to subvert our equal protection under law, you better crack a few history books. We have a strong apparatus, combined with a pro-speech national culture, that does a great job of protecting our rights of speech. You say that you want to hear it all? Well money doesn’t allow for speech; it takes the place of speech and endorses silence. As I’ve said before, if you own a corporation and you want to get out your message, maybe you should produce your own corporate newspaper or run TV ads instead of giving your money to political candidates. While both constitute speech under law, the former is actual speech, the latter is not speech at all. If I were you I would put off the hockey until you understand how this works.
livefreeordie2 - February 8, 2010 at 3:08 pm
suomynona – Well money doesn’t allow for speech; it takes the place of speech and endorses silence. As I’ve said before, if you own a corporation and you want to get out your message, maybe you should produce your own corporate newspaper or run TV ads instead of giving your money to political candidates. While both constitute speech under law, the former is actual speech, the latter is not speech at all.What does that even mean? I’m not trying to be snippy, really, but that rather dark and conspiratorial phrasing doesn’t seem to make sense. Again, campaign donations to individual candidates has not changed. That’s contained in a whole different set of laws. This ruling means that corporations can indeed run TV ads. They can express their opinion. Short of buying all the newspapers and TV stations and closing them, I don’t see how in this context, money endorses silence? The unions can get out their message. The corporations can get out their message. The non-profits an various special interests can get out their messages. How is money taking the place of speech? It doesn’t make sense. On the other hand, if people who wish to get out their message would send me a C note rather than pay for ads, I’ll take it – and then still do what I believe to be right.
lexalexander - February 9, 2010 at 9:03 am
[[This ruling means that corporations can indeed run TV ads. They can express their opinion. Short of buying all the newspapers and TV stations and closing them, I don't see how in this context, money endorses silence?]]It is now legal for, say, corporations favoring one candidate to buy EVERY SINGLE AVAILABLE AD SPOT ON EVERY BROADCAST OUTLET IN EVERY MARKET IN AMERICA for a month or six weeks leading up to an election. Would that be fantastically expensive? Of course. And that’s not “endorsing” silence. But it would be buying silence, and it is certainly doable.All spending on federal races (president, House and Senate) in the 2008 election cycle ran to about $5.3 billion. Total annual compensation for individuals at one company, Goldman Sachs, alone? $16.7 billion. Total 2008 profits for one company, Exxon, alone? $45 billion. Total annual profits for the Fortune 500? Roughly $745 billion.Two observations about those figures: 1) unions and nonprofits can’t raise anywhere near the amount of money that corporations can. 2) Corporations give money for an unassailable reason: Campaign donations, given the sweeping legislation that Congress and the president deal with, have been some of the most cost-effective investments in the history of capitalism. (Consider the single example of HD spectrum, taxpayers’ property that was given to broadcasters instead of being auctioned off.)
livefreeordie2 - February 9, 2010 at 10:20 am
lexalexander… While what you suggest is possible in theory, in fact it cannot be done. First of all, there are media outlets which have particular, political points of view and they are not all the same. Some conservative leaning, some liberal leaning. If a corporation was to attempt that, it would become a news story that would make more money than the company could spend. No company would want the American people to get the idea they were trying to stifle information. The truth is, I’d be willing to bet that no media outlet would tolerate even the attempt – aside from making it news, they probably have internal policies that prohibit it. You put too much stock in what wealth can purchase. Look at the Jersey governor’s race. A heavily Dem state. The incumbent had personal deep pockets and outspent the Republican Christie by $12M. And lost by 4% points. Money won’t help you if the people don’t want you.
lexalexander - February 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm
livefreeordie2: Before coming into higher ed a few months ago, I spent 30 years in the media — print, broadcast, online, from both the journalism and PR angles, in smaller markets and in New York. In case it matters, I’m also a lifelong Republican who has lived for all but a few years of my life in what was, until quite recently, a deep red state. A few observations from that experience:– Broadcast outlets aren’t allowed to accept or reject political campaign ads based on whom they’re for/against.– Print and cable aren’t subject to the same strictures, but “objective” media outlets don’t want to be perceived as favoring one candidate/party over another, and in this market, they’re going to take their ad revenue pretty much anywhere they can get it. As for the non-objective media outlets, no Democrat with half a brain would advertise on, say, Fox News (or Republican on MSNBC), but if one tried, I’m certain the network would be happy to take the money.– [[No company would want the American people to get the idea they were trying to stifle information.]]Sorry; there are quite a number that are too big, too crooked or both to care.Also, there are all manner of businesses that, while they wouldn’t want their names associated with an effort, are perfectly happy to contribute to, say, the Chamber of Commerce or a trade or business association and let IT be the bad guy. Indeed, in the health-care debate, we have just learned that some health-care businesses funneled money through the Chamber to oppose health-care reform after promising the president that in exchange for certain concessions they wouldn’t oppose health-care reform in Congress.[[The truth is, I'd be willing to bet that no media outlet would tolerate even the attempt - aside from making it news, they probably have internal policies that prohibit it.]] Right. And the publisher of The Washington Post didn’t try to whore off her news/editorial staff to political insiders at private “salons” last year. Truth is, you CAN go broke overestimating the integrity of American news media. Indeed, many people already have, quite literally (CNBC viewers, for example).I’m not saying, nor would I ever say, that money is the sole determinant of outcome in every political race. A smart financial underdog who catches the right wave can take out an inept favorite, as just happened in Massachusetts. But money matters a helluva lot, particularly when the people don’t know much and/or don’t care much, as is true of most voters with respect to most races. And the stock I put in what wealth CAN purchase is merely proportional to what I have seen it purchase already.
livefreeordie2 - February 9, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Lexalexander – Even if all you say is true, my personal belief is that there is a far greater danger to liberty in permitting the government (ie. the incumbants) to pick who can advertise and who cannot.
lexalexander - February 11, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Uh, who’s proposing that?Unless you’re talking about letting individuals advertise but not corporations, in which case I would say that the philosopical, logical, practical and constitutional arguments for drawing that distinction are overwhelming.