HPRgument Blog — January 25, 2010 11:35 pm

Money, Politics, and Citizens United

By Max Novendstern

I spent this past week complaining about government dysfunction — so I’d be remiss not to mention the Citizens United ruling. Of the many bad things that happened last week Citizens United is probably the most significant. The ruling will make our government worse. How much worse? It’s not clear — some argue that risk-averse corporations won’t be inclined to amp up political contributions, wasting share-holder money and damaging their brands; some say that the barriers between government and corporations are already so permeable that this ruling amounts to little — yet the point is, it will make things worse. The gap between legislators and their constituents (and the country they serve) will only widen, and the connection between corporations and the law will tighten.

Who can deny that? That an increase in corporate money means a decrease in legislator independence, in rational legislation, and in citizen trust in the system?

Specifically, I’d say there are two things we’re going to see more of: the rich buying elections, i.e. influencing who gets into congress through the link between corporate campaign contributions and voters’ opinions, and the rich buying votes, i.e. influencing what those congressmen do once they’re there through the link between campaign contributions and the politicians who benefit from receiving them.

Money of course should never be able to buy these things. Money is for buying cars and hotel tickets and (sure) prostitutes — but it cannot be for buying political power. The two spheres must be separate. That’s what equality demands: that a proclivity for making money does not translate into the power to make laws (just like the power to make laws doesn’t translate into the power to make money). Yet the merger of these two spheres, the economic and political, is already real. Consider the remarkable graph below, from Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels. He associates the votes of senators with the political opinions of their constituents, separated by income level:

This is a big subject. There are a whole lot of graphs to show and statistics to cite, but the point is commonsensical. There’s too much money in politics. It makes our laws worse, it’s inimical to justice, and it will, in the long run, undermine the institutional integrity of our legislative branch. Who knows what Citizens United will bring? But like I said: it will only make things worse.

Photo credit: Flickr stream of David Paul Ohmer

Related posts:

Biden and Gibbs Mad Libs
Social Studies Walkout: Video
Google Sells Out
Breaking Down The Super Committee
  • Jane Chen

    Hey Max –

    So I’ve been following the Citizens United decision and the aftermath pretty closely. This ranks among one of the most damning decision in the past [insert number of years here] years. Personally, I think it’s worse than Bush v. Gore. The majority opinion is disgusting to read: Kennedy dances around the real question of what exactly a corporation is, calling it a “disadvantaged person…deprived of public speech.”

    This is profoundly dishonest, to believe that people are too intellectually weak to understand that a corporation is (1) NOT a person, (2) NOT disadvantaged, and (3) DEFINITELY NOT deprived of attention. Breyer’s dissent is on the longer side – 90 pages – but it is pretty brilliant and gets to the crux of the problem.

    There are two more points I want to raise. First, it breeds cynicism about the institution. How could we possibly create an honest environment with this decision? You posed the same questions.

    The second problem is more overlooked and nuanced. It’s not just about Republicans being favored (as the bar graph shows), although that is obviously a part of it. The real effect of this decision will happen in state judicial elections. Two-thirds of states elect judges, and there is very little attention given to them. However, it is the corporate interests that have an incredible stake in the outcomes of state supreme court decisions because it is those courts that deal with civil and personal-injury cases. O’Connor, who like Kennedy is a (smarter) swing vote, has been arguing for an appointive system for this very reason.

    The attention now needs to shift away from anger. I’m writing this comment to add a section that must be essential to any Citizens United critique – to let readers know how to respond to this societal tragedy. What now? How do we respond?

    Write to your local congressman. I’m sure they’ve been getting floods of complain mail already; I suggest pushing for an appointive system. That way, we could cut off the very outcomes that corporate interests want to influence.

    Such an indirect approach is obviously not enough. Even overturning Citizens United is not enough – we need to overturn this poisonous institution, not one poisonous decision. Write to Congress to pass the Fair Elections Act (also called the Trustworthy Government Now Act), which could suffice for the time being. But in the end, we’re going to need to pass a constitutional amendment.

    Taking action isn’t anything ground-breaking. I’m not pulling out a Golden Plan of Action. I encourage all those moved by this decision to participate through changecongress.org and more recently, fixcongressfirst.org, a new site launched yesterday. Join the mailing list, sign the petition – take that extra step to bring back the democratic integrity lost with this decision. Educate yourself about this issue. The effects of the decision are going to roll in anytime soon.

    And finally ask yourself: What exactly is it that makes the corporation different from a person? If we can answer that question and build an amendment on our answer, then we could defeat this corruption for good.

  • Pingback: Three Weeks of HPRgument » The HPRgument

custom writing