Supreme Court Rules on Corporate Spending in Elections

After learning that the Supreme Court overturned decades of law in the Citizen United case—by ruling that corporation cannot be limited on their spending for independent political ads during the election of a candidate—my immediate thought was there goes the small donor revolution.

Regardless of party affiliations one of the most empowering aspects of the 2008 Presidential Election and primary season, was how candidates raised unprecedented amounts of money from small donors. From Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they each rallied their supporters to contribute to their campaigns in small amounts of money which gave voters a sense of ownership over the democratic process. The fact that the Citizens United case was argued to the Supreme Court, reargued, and then decided one day after the first year of President Obama’s (a man who topped the scales with small-donor contributions) inauguration is not only ironic, but signals how a conservative court can transfer the excitement and voice of all voters into the hands of a few.

While the court decided a specific legal issue in this case, the ruling will impact the democratic process as a whole. Voter turnout during the past election was the highest it has ever been before, with ten million more voters going to the polls than in the 2004 Presidential Election. It would be less than responsible not to point out two noticeable reasons that could have increased the voter turnout; having a minority and female candidate on different party tickets guaranteed the election would generate the first female vice president or the first Black president in the White House. However, female candidates and candidates of color have run in the past but have not trigger giving or voter turnout as it did in 2008. Voters we energized and participated in giving like never before which in turn increased turnout and reignited people’s belief in the democratic process.

My voting eligibility and history only extends back to the 2000 Presidential Election, but my passion for democracy and selecting the best candidate has been a long-time interest. Even with such a short-lived voting history I was more engaged in the 2008 election than I have ever been before. But my interest did not peak because my previous voting experiences lack excitement, rather, my first vote in 2000 ended with the Florida hanging chads disaster and the election being resolved in the Supreme Court only to be followed by standing in line for three-hours in the rain in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential Election and strong concerns to be raised about provisional ballots not being counted in that state. Nonetheless even with my interest in voting and the controversy around 2000 and 2004, the 2008 election was the first-time I ever contributed to a national, statewide or local campaign. In fact we heard stories throughout the entire campaign season about how people were becoming first-time donors and that their contributions were in small amounts.

The first-time donors like myself contributed because we thought if we gave to a campaign our voice would have power. But as of January 21, 2010 that power seemed to fade away. Voters can hold public officials responsible because if they do not act in line with the voters’ desire, the votes will go to another candidate in future elections. This concept is also true in regards to spending. If candidates do not develop policies in align with the ideals of the funders, the money will disappear. Donors give because they support their candidate, but giving to campaigns is also a way to have your voice heard when public officials have to make tough decisions.

Which leads to the questions, why and what does this have to do with Citizens United?

Well think about this. Who has more money Exxon or a public school teacher, Merck or me, big corporations or the everyday American say “Joe the Plumber”? The answer is simple Exxon, Merck and all the big corporations have more money than the average American. Which means a $100 donation will go as far as the giver can spit, if corporations can dig into their general treasury and spend $100,000,000 to flood the air-waves with political speech. And that is exactly what can happen now that the Supreme Court has ruled on Citizens United.

The Supreme Court says limiting corporate spending in elections violates their First Amendment rights. But even as a supporter of the First Amendment and a strong believer that all people should be able to speak freely, that does not seem to be what happened in this case. Here, the Court protected the rights of a non-human corporation not a person. These corporations are not people and don’t vote, so why should they be allowed to spend endless money and promote a candidate during elections? The simple answer is that they shouldn’t be, but the conservative Justices thought otherwise.

Since Court decided to take a “strong” step to protect speech while running in the opposite direction of upholding the ideals of democracy, what will happen next?

The upcoming mid-term elections can serve as an indicator of what future campaign seasons could look like, but ultimately regardless of the outcome in 2010 or ‘12 a door has been opened for corporations to buy elections and the American people will have to wait and see if the giants will walk through it. Since the Court let us know how they feel on this one, all Americans can do is hope that the corporate giants care about democracy enough that they will not drop their “nickel” into the pot with the hope of generating election results that will make their pockets’ fatter.