Apparently, We’re All Really Screwed

6:55 pm, 1/26/10

The Supreme Court's recent campaign finance ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, freeing corporate entities to donate to politicians on free speech grounds, gripped the left in an elegantly synchronized apoplectic fit. ChicagoNow blogger Stephen Markley's reaction neatly summarizes the thinking:

Campaign Finance: We Are All Really Screwed

Like I said yesterday, last week might have been one of the worst in modern American history.

People have not yet grasped the far-reaching and terrifying ramifications of this. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is basically the 9/11 of government corruption: It has opened the floodgates to a new, frightening era.

This ruling essentially opens the door for any corporation (and unions--big whoop), from Big Oil to Big Food to Big Health Insurance to spend as much money as possible defeating candidates who oppose their profits in the name of silly things like "the public good." It's not just corporations either: countries like China could very easily foot the bill to pick and choose candidates that will have policies beneficial to their interests. Hell, even al-Qaeda could set up a multi-national corporation and start funding their preferred candidates.

Clearly, we're all going to die in a fire caused by the safety regulations that will now be overturned, because up to this point, special interests have had little influence on the system. It's only a matter of time before the tobacco companies cram billions of dollars down the throats of innocent, helpless political candidates, leading unwitting voters to elect a Congress which passes mandatory, universal "cancer-for-all" legislation. Organized crime syndicates will be able to use front organizations to funnel money to their political allies, something which has never happened before. (Imagine the crazy, topsy-turvy world where some sort of "mafia" might use the noble labor unions in this way, or where an Islamic advocacy group might rake in massive funding from foreign backers. Unheard of.)

Besides, what? Now judicial review is only a good thing when it creates the results Democrats desire? In all seriousness, putting aside the horrors that can be easily justified in the name of "the public good" (who's to say that "Big X" is wrong, and why shouldn't voters be free to decide for themselves instead of having the concerns of major players in the debate suppressed?), it should be obvious that corporations would like to spend as little of their money as possible on politics and will only spend as much of it as actually gets a result. The real causal relationship here is not that large contributions cause otherwise honest politicians to turn into William Jefferson, it's that many politicians are effectively running a protection racket, and the scope of the harm they can do to those who slight them guarantees that their clout will be richly rewarded, one way or another. If there's anything voters should have learned from watching the death spiral of Rod Blagojevich, it's that even children's hospitals and the media are not safe.

(Personally, I learned the healing value of laughter, but my Blagojevich experience was somewhat different from most people.)

Aware of this dynamic, some executives are already worried:

Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.

Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers - and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.

It's a legitimate complaint, but public financing is certainly not an answer. The most disorganized, lazy, and unpopular candidates shouldn't be artificially elevated to the same level as others. Voters, whether they're acting on behalf of their economic concerns or their home and family, should not have to see any of their resources diverted to political causes they disagree with and should be free to support those that they do as much as energetically as they like. It's a marketplace of ideas, not a commune, and if we don't trust our politicians enough to let them accept donations freely and transparently, it's insane to think that they can be trusted to handle public financing responsibly, or even in a way that serves any purpose other than consolidating their power and securing their station. (Consider the Solomaic wisdom with which they've handled ballot access and redistricting.)

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court set out to address a very real and undemocratic injustice, "reforms" so restrictive that they criminalized private citizens who chose to work together as a non-profit corporation to finance the creation of a political documentary. As Matt Welch suggested, "let's boil it down to the essential words: Political documentary, banned, government." That's a poisonous and reprehensible notion, and in resolving it, they correctly reasoned that if they can't bar non-profit corporations from financing political advocacy and are exempting media corporations, they also can't arbitrarily bar other for-profit corporations. All the decision reaffirms is that the real responsibility lies with us. We elect our politicians, and no campaign donation or advocacy campaign can be so vast as to force our hand at the ballot box. If we want to dry up the money from special interests we don't support, all we have to do is stop rewarding abuses of power with our votes on election day. The money will quit flowing just that quickly. In the meantime, if we can't be trusted to actually consider what the few politicians on our ballot support and who supports them, then all the reforms in the world serve only to hide the fact that we have no idea what we're doing. There is no legislation that can fix that.

Update: Reason's Steve Chapman:

It is often argued that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But it's a longstanding constitutional axiom that the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits - say, barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing.

Once you grant the government that sort of power, it is bound to expand. Newspapers could be forbidden to make endorsements. Right now, media companies are exempt from the ban. But why should a newspaper be free to spend money urging voters to support a candidate, while other companies are not?

John Stossel:

So now we are being served dire warnings that "corporate money ... may now overwhelm both the contributions of individuals and the faith they may harbor in their democracy." (Are similarly freed wealthy labor unions potted plants?) But the same Post editorial conceded that corporate money was "never lacking in the American political process." So what's the difference?

The difference is that the Supreme Court has reminded Congress that there's actually a Constitution, and that they're actually bound by it. This angers the Leviathan.