Citizen United Update

My Citizen Union case posts about "Corporations are not People" have been challenged with the "Free Speech" brush. I finally agreed, as long as there were safeguards against direct money transfers or coordination between corporations and candidates or parties. But the following indicates my concerns are real and growing.

Now that the 2010 Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates to corporate-sponsored election ads, conservative opponents of campaign finance regulations have opened up a series of new legal fronts in their effort to eliminate the remaining laws restricting the flow of money into politics. They have taken to Congress, State Legislatures, and the lower courts to target almost every type of regulation on the books: disclosure requirements, bans on foreign and corporate contributions and, in a pair of cases the Supreme Court will consider this month, party spending limits and public financing of campaigns.

These types of lawsuits against campaign finance measures have been flooding the courts for years, but now they’re finding more success on the Supreme Court taking very anti-campaign finance reform stands or more appropriately, pro-corporate stances and so the cases are reaching further than they ever did before. Perhaps more significantly, Citizens United emboldened increasingly well-funded conservative small-government groups to pursue more aggressive attacks on other regulations that were previously considered beyond reach.

Groups are now pursuing federal lawsuits seeking to overturn other political money restrictions, including a closely watched case challenging a rule barring political action committees from giving to candidates if they raise unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals for ads.

The outcome of a case challenging Arizona’s public financing system, which is scheduled for a March 28 argument before the Supreme Court, will be the first big play on this. It could set the tone on whether the Supreme Court is still moving in the deregulatory direction and it could indicate new targets to go after. Brought by a pair of small government groups, the Washington-based Institute for Justice and the Phoenix based Goldwater Institute, on behalf of an Arizona state lawmaker who rejected public funds. The case, McComish v. Bennett, only challenges a specific provision in the Arizona system. But it could have wide-ranging implications, particularly since it comes as advocates for reducing the flow of money into politics have been placing their hopes for dialing back the impact of Citizens United on proposals to publicly fund political races, including a bill that would set up such a system for congressional campaigns. An adverse ruling from the high court could undermine public financing systems across the country and increase still further the grossly disproportionate voice given to corporations and unions in our elections.

Opponents of campaign rules argue that removing restrictions allows more voices to compete in the political marketplace. And they have a slew of other suits pending that could dramatically alter the political money landscape, including one challenging a rule that limited how much the Republican National Committee could spend supporting the unsuccessful 2010 reelection campaign of former Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), direct corporate contributions to state candidates.

A pair of others dispute whether non-profit groups called the Committee for Truth in Politics and The Real Truth About Obama that aired ads critical of then candidate Barack Obama had to disclose their donors or activity. While liberals have framed the assault on campaign spending restrictions as part of a vast corporate conspiracy, funded by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, to elect Republicans, it’s not just conservative groups challenging the campaign laws.

A Democratic donor is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a law prohibiting people from reimbursing others for donations. The donor, prominent Los Angeles lawyer Pierce O’Donnell, was charged with violating that law by reimbursing 13 employees of his firm and other associates who combined to contribute $26,000 to the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

And a suit challenging the foreign contribution ban is being brought on behalf of a Canadian who wants to support President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and a dual Israeli-Canadian citizen who wants to contribute to Obama’s opponent and also to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), to help prevent a “government takeover of the health-care system in the United States,” according to the suit. It says both plaintiffs are legally authorized to live and work in the United States, but are not permanent residents.

Then there’s the ACLU, often a leading champion of liberal causes which nonetheless over the years has been among the most effective and best funded opponents of many campaign finance restrictions, deeming them unconstitutional infringements on free speech. The group filed a brief supporting the Citizens United challenge and has suits pending challenging a provision in Connecticut’s public financing law, as well as a Maine law used to fine a blogger who failed to disclose his identity after spending $92 on a blog opposing a gubernatorial candidate. But less than three months after the Citizens United decision, the ACLU hosted a vigorous debate on its campaign finance stances, ultimately voting to continue its support for the ruling, but to relax its opposition to certain types of public financing programs and to drop its opposition to contribution limits.

So my concerns seems to be real. We need to stay focused and determine case by case where the true fights are.

Corporations are not People!









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us