Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, September 25, 2016

After ‘Citizens United II,’ Reformers Must Turn Away From The High Court

After ‘Citizens United II,’ Reformers Must Turn Away From The High Court

It should have come as no surprise that the Supreme Court would strike down the lower court decision to uphold Montana’s ban on corporate political spending. Even if Justice Anthony Kennedy, say, had been taken aback by the public reaction to his flawed opinion in Citizens United, it is extremely rare for the Court to directly reverse itself. The more likely outcome, if the Court had taken the case rather than simply reversed the lower court’s decision, would have been that it might move even further in the direction of Citizens United – for example, by indicating that it would reconsider prohibitions on direct contributions from candidates. As Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog commented yesterday, “The best way to win before the Roberts Court if you are a campaign reformer (aside from on disclosure issues) is not to play.”

What does it mean “not to play”? It doesn’t mean giving up on everything. And it shouldn’t mean pursuing the even more futile path of a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United. Rather, it means getting over the obsession with corporate money, which plays a small role in federal elections and Super PACs, and getting refocused instead on the broader question of the ways in which political inequality reinforces economic inequality. To put CU in perspective, corporate money (mostly from privately held companies) represents only 17 percent of contributions to Super PACs, and Super PACs represent, so far, only about 10 percent of the total money in federal politics. That’s not to dismiss the issue or the cases, but corporate political spending is only one part of the story of how money distorts democracy.

While Citizens United and the somewhat more important SpeechNow case have certainly brought in a new atmosphere of “anything goes” to money in politics, there are answers that don’t involve waiting around for one of the five conservative justices on the Court to retire. One, of course, is generous public financing, such as New York City’s system, which provides a six-to-one match on small contributions. State legislators and Governor Cuomo have been pushing to extend the city system to the state level. Everywhere that similar public financing systems have been put in place (Arizona, Connecticut, Maine) they have been popular, resilient, constitutionally sound, and have broadened the role of small contributors and brought new candidates into the process.

  • William Deutschlander

    It is truly a travesty what the 5 conservatives have done to our once proud Democracy!

    The only sense that one can draw from this travesty, is that they would prefer an Autocracy!

  • Landsende

    When people like the Koch brothers and Karl Rove can buy elections because of a ruling by SCOTUS it’s a travesty especially when you find out about their cozy relationship with Scalia and Thomas.

    • ObozoMustGo

      Hi Land… long time no chat. I hope you are well today! 🙂

      Just had to comment on the standard references to the old Koch Brothers and Rove boogieman references. Nice work! LOL

      Have a nice day!

  • ObozoMustGo

    NUMBER FOR THE DAY ——– 14

    The number of prominant DemocRAT politicians that are running from Obozo and the DemocRAT convention for his 2nd party incarnation ceremony. They are smart!!!

    Have a nice day!