RSS Feed MenuThe Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v FEC gives Republicans an unexpected and possibly transformative gift in the lead up to the 2010 mid-terms…. that is if Republicans are smart enough to recognize it as such and take advantage.
The decision almost certainly favors Republican interests, since corporations are certainly not going to line up in favor of Democrats. In recent years, Democrats have out-raised Republicans by significant margins and as of this morning, Democrats seemed poised to head into the mid-terms with the financial edge. No more. Businesses are already lining up to oppose the Obama administration and the Democratic members of Congress loyal to the President. The Chamber of Commerce, which filed an amicus brief in favor of the non-profit that challenged the FEC (as did the NRA), spent $36 million on advertisements and get-out-the-vote activities in 2008 and has already announced its intentions to organize a campaign infinitely larger and more aggressive than its previous effort. The Court properly applied the first Amendment today, and as a result, Republicans have an excellent opportunity to narrow the fundraising gap. Needless to say, Democrats are having a bad month.
Regardless of what you think of the Supreme Court’s decision, the laws governing the political landscape are radically different today than they were yesterday. Citizens United opened the floodgates that previously prevented corporations and unions from spending their general funds on campaign advertisements that explicitly advocate in favor of or against the election of a candidate. The decision did uphold disclosure requirements, but nonetheless, a great deal of potential advocacy money just became in play for candidates, and members of both political parties are already moving to respond to the decision.
The President, for one, ain’t exactly thrilled. He led the Democratic charge against the decision, stating that today the SCOTUS “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” and proclaiming his intention to “develop a forceful response.” He continued that “it is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans…. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington—while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”
Senator Chuck Schumer is apparently already moving to attempt to pass some sort of legislation that might at least partially blunt the effects of the Court’s ruling prior to the 2010 election cycle. While Democratic objections may to some degree be philosophical, their reaction to the ruling is undoubtedly in part related to the timing of the decision. A humiliating and truly disgraceful loss in Massachusetts not only derailed the Democrats’ health care bill but it has also raised fears among Democrats that the 2010 mid-terms could be truly catastrophic. Larry Sabato notes that “it is likely that Republicans will gain at least 3-5 senate seats in November. Even more startling, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election, Republicans would do even better IF the general election were being held today. The Crystal Ball projects that the Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats if November’s contest were somehow moved to January.” This decision has only served to further terrify Democrats.
teabag // Jan 21, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Yep, the GOP the best party money can buy.
You might think the ruling is good for the GOP, in reality it’s bad for politics of any stripe. Big corporations should be able to lobby, but they should not be able to buy a party, politicians or even your local mayor. This ruling is a disgrace.
MR FACE // Jan 21, 2010 at 8:55 pm
This ruling changes politics forever. In a horrible terrible way. Corporations will rule the US. Voters don’t matter anymore. Politicians will be bought and sold strictly by money. Nothing else matters now. Sad and pathetic.
fromNJ // Jan 21, 2010 at 10:15 pm
This will no doubt help the Republicans in the long run but it will not make for good policy for anyone. I truly wonder if the conservatives who are angry with the bank bailouts will be pleased that they can now buy the politicians’ guarantee for even larger bailouts in the future. The Republicans may have won today, but the average American taxpayer of any political stripe (conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, and moderate alike ) clearly did not.
kevin47 // Jan 21, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Good points all. Before McCain-Feingold, America only elected losers like Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln.
“Voters don’t matter anymore.”
On what basis do you say this? Voters vote. Your argument assumes they are too stupid to ignore advertising. If this is true, voters never mattered anyway.
communists-basher // Jan 21, 2010 at 11:45 pm
This should kill the healthcare bill on its feet.
This should also help to return to Capitalism.
This bill comes in a very timely manner. There is God ….
JJWFromME // Jan 21, 2010 at 11:51 pm
You mean the Abraham Lincoln who wrote this?
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
–Letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864
Kanzeon // Jan 22, 2010 at 1:11 am
I was taught public drolling was unseemly.
Old fashioned, I guess.
I don’t know if I agree with the popular notion that this will make much difference. Corporations already give hundreds of millions of dollars to the political parties, and the Republicans don’t have that big an edge (see opensecrets.org for data). But, as Frum points out elsewhere, the ruling affects speech, not donations. There isn’t any reason to believe that corporations (or unions, or PACs) are holding back, no reason to think that eliminating this sort of restriction will increase the flood of money, and no reason to think that more money will buy elections any more than they are already. We are already saturated with political ads. The Presidential candidates last election cycle were raising $10 million per month. Something like $2.5 billion was raised in the 2006 election cycle. The return on more dollars is probably marginal. I doubt that running the Hillary hit piece in this case would have changed anything.
Gloating over money you don’t need reinforces your party’s image as thralls of venal, soulless robber barrons.
jabbermule // Jan 22, 2010 at 3:18 am
teabag, mr face, from nj:
Your paranoid left-wing delusions are astounding (as usual), but let’s assume for a moment that you’re all correct in your assumptions. My answer is a resounding GREAT…I would much rather have free market capitalist corporations run this country than your pathetic statist socialist Democrats. All THEY know how to do is punish opportunity and wealth creators in this country, and run the economy into the ground.
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
JJWFromME // Jan 22, 2010 at 8:27 am
“teabag, mr face, from nj…”
You forgot Abraham Lincoln.
(Republicans selectively read America’s past leaders as blatantly as they do the Bible.)
sinz54 // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:43 am
The Left suffered a triple-play loss this week:
Martha Coakley
the Supreme Court ruling on campaign contributions
the end of Air America
sinz54 // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:47 am
kevin47: Good points all. Before McCain-Feingold, America only elected losers like Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln.
If a Southern cotton-growing slaveholding company the size of today’s Exxon-Mobil had existed in 1860, I’m not sure Lincoln would have been elected.
They could have paid campaign workers to spread their message far and wide, while Lincoln would be limited to speaking to small groups here and there.
Having said that, we did elect Theodore Roosevelt to bust the trusts, and he succeeded despite their best efforts to thwart him.
But the string of Presidents we’ve had lately couldn’t fill Teddy Roosevelt’s shoes.
sinz54 // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:52 am
JJWFromME: You mean the Abraham Lincoln who wrote this?
He did not write it.
It’s a forgery.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp
But it’s acquired such a mythic status that lots of people believe it, and can even cite references about it–but the ORIGINAL reference, way back then, was false.
LauraNo // Jan 22, 2010 at 11:32 am
“I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
JJWFromME // Jan 22, 2010 at 1:17 pm
The Jefferson quote is a good one. I know he wanted laws against monopoly written into the constitution. A lot of people don’t know that Adam Smith railed against monopolistic Dutch companies in The Wealth of Nations.
What would Jefferson have thought of the individual’s political contributions made meaningless by huge companies with, in practical terms, unlimited budgets? If Exxon Mobile decides climate change legislation is an existential threat, it could dedicate just about all of its 45 billion dollars to plastering the airwaves. Common sense says that’s got to be related to monopoly power.
Sinz: It looks like you’re right, though, I’ll grant you that the Lincoln quote is apocryphal.