Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

This year, the Supreme Court cleared the way for unlimited spending by corporations, unions and other interest groups on election campaign advertisements in its five to four decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 130 S.Ct. 876, 896-914 (2010). Many claim that, as a result, campaign spending has dramatically increased while donor transparency has significantly decreased. The Washington Post reports that interest groups are spending five times as much on the 2010 Congressional Elections as they did on the 2006 midterm elections. According to T.W. Farnam and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post, “the $80 million spent so far by groups outside the Democratic and Republican parties dwarfs the $16 million spent at this point for the 2006 midterms. In that election, the vast majority of money - more than 90 percent - was disclosed along with donors' identities. This year, that figure has fallen to less than half of the total, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.” The Post further claims that most of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have “swamped their democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks.” However, this may stem from President Obama’s disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and his position against “moneyed interests in Washington” in general. Interest Group Spending Up Fivefold from 2006; Many Sources Secret, Washington Post, October 4, 2010.

Interest groups receive funding from wealthy donors and corporations. Many interest groups are organized as nonprofits because they are not required to disclose their funding, which has contributed to the increase in secret donors. The Washington Post has found that “many groups, for example, avoid reporting what they spend on attacks by making a subtle distinction, saying their message is focused on candidates' positions on issues instead of the election itself.” Many interest groups are latching onto this newfound power as a chance to make an impact on the outcome of elections. However, others worry about the effect that anonymous group spending will have on the political process since no one knows where campaign finance money is coming from. The Post, along with many others, worry that “the trends amount to a spending frenzy conducted largely in the shadows.” T.W. Farnam and Dan Eggen, Interest Group Spending.

Major conservative nonprofit interest groups this year include Americans for Job Security, Crossroads GPS, League of Conservative Voters, and the 60 Plus Association. In response to the emerging “spending frenzy,” several Democratic politicians recently announced the creation of The Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending. This coalition is aimed at pressuring major companies not to use corporate money for political campaigns and hopes to secure promises from these corporations to fully disclose their political spending. The Coalition is headed by New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who hopes to persuade large corporations to “adopt policies that forbid spending money from their general treasuries on campaigns.” The Coalition was formed as a response to the lack of direction from Congress with regards to disclosure requirements. De Blasio feels it is up to the states and localities to “encourage transparency and discourage bad corporate behavior.” Dan Eggen, Group Seeks Companies’ Pledge Not to Use Corporate Money for Campaigns, Washington Post, October 5, 2010.

Democrats and Republicans disagree over the evils of Citizens United’s impact on free campaign spending. Republicans argue that Democrats are restricting citizens’ constitutionally protected right to free speech because they feel threatened by funding from corporations that generally favor the GOP. Democrats point to the evils of corporate political spending and the possibility of unfair election results due to waves of political propaganda. Moreover, many believe that anonymous political advertisements lead to slander campaigns that untruthfully criticize political opponents.

However, some voters feel that Citizens United is not to blame for increased political spending. For example, in a Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post, Paul Sherman of Arlington feels that congressional unpopularity is the cause of increased spending. He notes that “nonprofit corporations have been allowed to spend money in elections since 1986, and they had to disclose only contributions that were ‘earmarked’ for political advertising.” Allowing corporations and unions to fund these nonprofit interest groups is an insignificant change since these corporations “were already permitted to anonymously fund issue ads discussing political candidates.” Lastly, he points out that “those who distrust anonymous political advertisements should do what they have always been permitted to do: ignore them.” Don’t Blame Big Election Spending on ‘Citizens United,’ October 7, 2010.

While I believe that the potential for untruthful and slanderous advertisements increases with this new wave of anonymous campaign funding, I agree with my fellow voter in that citizens who distrust the advertisements have the right not to listen to them. It is true that recently political television commercials seem to “bash” the opponent over trivial issues in a way that reminds of me of high school rumors being spread during lunchtime. However, with or without transparency in corporate funding of interest groups, a party is always going to criticize the opponent, and some will be less subtle than others. In the end, no matter who funds a campaign, it is up to the voter to sift through the trivialities and make decisions based on a candidates position on various issues. This is the only solution to a problem that will most likely find a way of recurring in one way or another.