“A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” You don't say!

..................................................................................................................................
Big money impacting political decisions
By Wolf D. Fuhrig, November 10, 2013

A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited labor unions, corporations, and not-for-profit organizations to campaign within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. Section 203 of the act defined an “electioneering communication” as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication. The law was primarily designed to prohibit “national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion.”

The act’s chief sponsors, senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, saw the proliferation of advocacy advertising as a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Plaintiffs led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, however, challenged the bill as unconstitutional.

When in 2010 the issue came before the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission, a 5 to 4 majority of the justices held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. Citizens United, a conservative lobby, wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the McCain-Feingold Act.

The court, however, held that portions of the act violated the Constitution, and Republican Sen. McConnell cheerfully observed that the court “struck a blow for the First Amendment.” It certainly gave big business and big labor the green light to spend unlimited sums on advertising in support of the politicians they favor.

The Citizens United decision did not change the prohibitions on corporate contributions to individual candidates, but it did remove the previous ban on corporations and other organizations to apply funds in their treasuries to direct advocacy and expressly endorse specific named candidates. Such practices remain prohibited. The court, however, upheld the existing requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA, ß201 and ß311).

The Court’s ruling in Citizens United did not affect the ban of the Tillman Act of 1907 on corporate campaign donations, nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns. The decision also did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens was joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Stevens concurred in the court’s decision to sustain BCRA’s disclosure provisions but argued that the court’s ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” He added: “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”

Campaign finance attorney Cleta Mitchell, who had filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the ban, wrote that “The Supreme Court has correctly eliminated a constitutionally flawed system that allowed media corporations (e.g., The Washington Post Co.) to freely disseminate their opinions about candidates using corporate treasury funds, while denying that constitutional privilege to Susie’s Flower Shop Inc. … The real victims of the corporate expenditure ban have been nonprofit advocacy organizations across the political spectrum.”

The impact of the court’s decision in Citizens United soon became apparent. In March 2010, the Circuit of the District of Columbia ruled that individuals could make unlimited contributions to the big political action committees, the so-called Super PACs, which supported individual candidates. Consequently, the presidential election campaigns in 2012 were largely underwritten by single individuals.

Sheldon Adelson, the gambling entrepreneur, gave some $15 million to support Newt Gingrich, and Foster Friess, a Wyoming financier, donated close to $2 million to Rick Santorum’s Super PAC. Karl Rove’s Super PACs spent more than $300 million in support of Republicans during the 2012 elections.

In the words of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the U.S. Supreme Court “radically shifted the balance of power from citizens to special interests.”
..................................................................................................................................