Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

I recently attended a legal symposium entitled “Citizens Divided on Citizen’s United: Campaign Finance Reform and the First Amendment.” This event was hosted by Nexus: Chapman’s Journal of Law and Policy. The greatest part of the event was that it lived up to its name. Citizens were at the very least – divided (don’t expect the same from me).

It was a true example of academia at its best. The event featured some of the foremost experts on campaign law. This culminated in a Keynote Presentation by Grant Davis-Denny and Benjamin Ginsberg, gentlemen who both spend an inordinate amount of time explaining campaign law to those with real power, including Supreme Court Justices and Members of Congress. But, what really made the event top notch was that every panel had both sides of the spectrum.

Too much of academia involves one view point being shown in full force, while the other is in the back corner muttering obscenities. The presenters in this symposium were able to use their time to really hash out the true hotspots of campaign finance reform, with utmost confidence that the person speaking after them would poke holes in their dialogue, or more likely create craters. That is after all what makes education fun.

But, this isn’t a blog on how great Nexus did, or how smart the presenters were. This is a blog on Campaign Finance Reform so I am going to tell you what I really took out of the Symposium in regards to Citizens United. But first, one last plug--the Journal being produced with contributions from these scholars is going to be a must read for anyone who practices this kind of law, or seeks guidance about the future of campaign finance.

First, Citizens United probably doesn’t really change Campaign Finance Law as much as everyone thinks it does (let me make it clear, prior to this symposium I was definitely part of ‘everyone’). To put it bluntly: the law regarding campaign finance was already pretty bad. Corporations could already, through the use of soft money, donate to whatever campaigns they wanted. For example, they could prior to the decision in Citizens United donate money through issue ads, which advertise an issue supported by a certain campaign. Or, in other words use an issue to show how weak or strong a certain candidate is. What Citizens United dis was simply let corporations know that they no longer had to beat around the bush, they can now donate whatever they would like directly to a certain candidate.

But, whether or not issue ads, or direct campaign donations are more effective really doesn’t matter. Scholars can argue, and they do, all they want about how Citizens United didn’t really change anything…blah…blah...blah. What really matter is that the Supreme Court again legitimized these kinds of donations. They basically told corporations that they are free to buy whatever campaigns they would like. The Supreme Court again went further down this path of anonymity and campaign lobbying.

In a time where we have an unmanageable unemployment rate and peoples’ homes are being foreclosed on I don’t think it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to reinforce a law that legitimizes Corporate Campaign Spending.

The other side tends to argue that corporations aren’t the only entities that should be thrown under the bus. They tend to argue that unions are just as bad. They point to the fact that unions can now donate just like corporations. Let me make one thing clear: Wall Street money being donated to campaigns dwarfs that of its union counterpart. The focus needs to lie where the money is, and that is smack dab in the middle of corporate donations.

(As a side note: another idea that I find weird about the whole corporations donating money for campaigns is the fact that they are basically donating money to…themselves. Stay with me for a second. The majority of corporate money is being spent on commercials. One buys airtime from several large corporations. If one takes the premise that most of these large corporations are rooting for the same political landscape it seems kind of silly to me that this circular money swirling is being legitimized by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.)

I learned a few other tidbits of knowledge at the symposium. For one there is a huge debate going on in regards to the disclaimer and disclosure provisions affected by Citizens United. Basically, one side believes that if money is donated to a campaign the public should be aware of who donated it. Accordingly, the same side believes that shareholders of corporations should know where their money is being spent, and possibly even have a vote to whether their money should be spent on certain political campaigns. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy spoke brilliantly at the symposium on this latter subject, enlightening the audience to English disclosure laws, which require stockholders to vote for political contributions. The arguments on this side of the debate are pretty obvious, and in my view don’t even need to be touched on.

However, the other side has really spent some time coming up with ingenious arguments. The other side screams harm because consumers may boycott corporation that donate to causes they don’t agree with. Oh gosh! What is this world coming to?!?!? In addition they use the recent Target example, as evidence of this horror. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011983-503544.html). Sorry if I just don’t see it. Maybe you do.

It may be that Citizens United didn’t change all of corporate campaign donations as we know it. It is true that laws governing restrictions on corporate donations have been eroded by the Supreme Court over the last thirty to forty years. But, what I believe is certain is that we don’t know what part Citizens United will play--yet. We don’t know what is going to happen because by the time Citizens United was decided the midterm election was already well on its course. Campaign donations by large corporations are meticulously and legally analyzed. The law had not even been chewed o--let alone digested by the time the midterm elections rolled up. The effects of Citizens United will really begin to solidify over the next two years, running up to the Presidential election. By then, corporations will be able to start feeling out the impact, start trying to Constitutionally limit the disclosure/disclaimer provisions. By then, corporations will do what they do best: spend their money intelligently, which coincidental--IS more of the same.