Citizens United and the Conventional Wisdom
While the Supreme Court's recent decision on the individual mandate has surely given President Barack Obama a new appreciation for the justices, it hasn't stopped his complaining about the court's decision a couple years ago on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At a campaign event in Virginia last week, the mere mention of Citizens United provoked boos among supporters who took the president at his word that the decision has opened the floodgates for outside money in elections.
In a new piece in The New York Times, however, Matt Bai challenges this conventional wisdom by examining the actual impact of the decision.
Those who criticize the effect of Citizens United look at these very technical changes and see an obvious causal relationship. The high court says outside groups are allowed to use corporate dollars to expressly support candidates, and suddenly we have this tidal wave of money threatening to overwhelm the airways. One must have led to the other, right?
Well, not necessarily. Legally speaking, zillionaires were no less able to write fat checks four years ago than they are today. And while it is true that corporations can now give money for specific purposes that were prohibited before, it seems they aren’t, or at least not at a level that accounts for anything like the sudden influx of money into the system. According to a brief filed by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, and Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, in a Montana case on which the Supreme Court ruled last month, not a single Fortune 100 company contributed to a candidate’s super PAC during this year’s Republican primaries. Of the $96 million or more raised by these super PACs, only about 13 percent came from privately held corporations, and less than 1 percent came from publicly traded corporations.
Bai also points out a fact that much of media establishment would rather forget. The drive toward outside money did not begin with Karl Rove and company. It began with George Soros and other supporters of Senator John Kerry in 2004. "All told, wealthy liberals spent something close to $200 million in an effort to oust George W. Bush in 2004, setting an entirely new standard for outside spending," Bai writes.
In the spirit of Kerry's bid for president, it's only fitting to conclude that some Obama supporters were for outside money before being against it.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Jun '12
Re: Citizens United and the Conventional Wisdom
That's the line of the day, right there.
On a more substantive note, I've found it effective when lefties go frothing at the mouth about Citizens United to point out that what it really did was allow corporations to donate the same way unions do, followed by asking them why one was OK and the other was not.
Dec '11
Re: Citizens United and the Conventional Wisdom
The only surprising thing about this post is that the article that Jonathan quotes is from the New York Times. I'm stunned that it got past the gatekeepers.
May '11
Re: Citizens United and the Conventional Wisdom
A message to lefties, who fulminate against Citzens United:
Your concern about Citizens United seems odd. I thought the evil corporate oligarchy already controlled everything, and had already bought and paid for all the politicians in both parties. At least, that's what you guys say all the time. So why are you all so concerned about this decision, or Citizens United? It's all coals to Newcastle, isn't it?
Frankly, I'm surprised that the evil corporate oligarchs even allow you to say these things. Aren't you concerned that the jackbooted Republican thugs will show up at your IP address some night and nobody will ever see you again? You openly oppose a Supreme Court decision as if you thought we lived in a free society, rather than the fascist plutocracy that you rail against all the time. It's almost like there was some kind of delusional cognitive dissonance going on here.
Mar '11
Re: Citizens United and the Conventional Wisdom
One of the key plaintifs in the Citizens United case was the National Rifle Association. They have pointed out in an article in the current issue of First Freedom that while the media likes to scapegoat the NRA as one of the "big players" in lobbying and outside money, the trial lawyers have contritubed about 10x the money over the last 20 years.
The NRA has spent something like $100 million since 1990 on lobbying, the trial lawyers have spent about $1.1 billion.
So yeah, the hyperventilating on the left about this issue is hypocritical. Of course they keep trying to tweak the laws to exempt their own groups - see the DISCLOSE act and Orwellian "People's Rights Amendment".
Re: Citizens United and the Conventional Wisdom
I suppose there are just some folks who will never like outside groups except when they are the outside groups.