I was reading about the ruling that came down this week and had similar thoughts regarding its negative impact on the political process. I came across this piece on Politico, which suggested that fears of it are overblown:
www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878/.html
I'd be interested to hear what others think on this take, which suggests that at most, it will simply be a shift in cash from 527s, but nothing as drastic as has been suggested by many others. I agree that funding certain attack ads or other politically related activites could alienate shareholders and may deter coroporations from doing little beyond what they do now (which isn't the greatest to begin with). The article suggests that wealthy individuals will likely be the biggest benificiaries of the ruling, but that the impact will be marginalized by the preference of candidates and past experiences.
I'm not so sure I agree with the article's premise. It seems to suggest consequences could be rather little, but then goes on in the very end to say in targeted Congressional races the impact could be rather noticed. It also suggests that the one thing holding back a potential flood of money would be the candidate itself. I wonder if every candidate will feel the need to push back on these wealthy individuals or groups who can now give money in a much simpler way. To me, it seems that single issue groups will be able to push their agend much more effectively, perhaps harming both party structure and cohesion, and possibly electing candidates who are so indebted to one cause that they are ignorant on other important policies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the decision last week goes a long way in promoting the apathy in the US that was discussed in Monday night's class.
ReplyDeleteThis is just another example of free expression being manipulated to protect those with the most, while those with the least suffer.
In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that limits to contributions to a campaign were constitutional to stop corruption, but limits on a candidate's expenditures toward his or her own campaign were seen as too much of a violation of the First Amendment.
Although expenditure limits may hinder the campaign of a candidate, uncontrolled, or very liberal expenditure limits keep challengers on the outside of the system, aiding in the apathy that dominates society.
Instead of manipulating free expression to maintain the status quo, more needs to be done to equalize free expression to spark change and legitimate debate to stimulate the gathering of diverse perspectives mentioned in class.
Abahy mentioned the lack of term limits that help keep apathy thriving, and along with the lack of campaign finance control the party system is another form of status quo promotion that is covered up by democratic cliams.
In Buckly, Justice Rehnquist in his opinion questioned the public finance system of presidential campaigns, even going as far as stating it was an attempt by Congrees to maintain the two party system, while seriously hindering any serious third party efforts to develop and challenge for office.
Parties, a lack of term limits, and a lack of campaign finance regulation are suppose to promote freedom, but after Monday's class I definitely see these aspects of American politics as more of a tool to promote apathy and mask what politics in the US really represents.
This is an interesting thread, partly because it's hard to tell what the full consequences of such a major ruling will be until the 2010 midterms give us an example to go on. Joe correctly points out that Buckley vs. Valeo made a distinction between contributions and expenditures, saying the former could be limited but the latter could not in federal elections. That distinction still applies: the court's ruling will not allow corporations to contribute unlimited sums of its cash to a candidate's campaign committee or to a PAC. The hard-money limits on contributions will still apply. And the money that was funneled into 527's after McCain-Feingold banned soft money will still be allowed. But that money will be dwarfed by the unlimited sums that corporations can expend on behalf of candidates, as "independent expenditures," meaning only that the money is not given to the candidate committee to spend as it would like. Some corporations, tired of being shaken down by politicians seeking PAC money, have agreed to sign a pledge foregoing the use of their funds in this manner. But the list will not be great and that alone won't work to level the playing field. What concerns me is that, despite talk about amending corporate law do deny limited liabiiity status to those corporations who want to spend unlimited sums of money as if they were individuals pursuiing their first admendment rights, is enacting a new regime of campaign finance that calls for public financing. It's not likely. What is likely is that this will severely cripple the parties, especially the Democratic Party, which is more heterogenous to begin with. Instead of the "candidate-centered era," we will see the "corporate-centered era." No candidate that runs on a platform aimed at using fiscal tools to strengthen the middle class, let alone the poor, will face enormous corporate opposition and will likely be outspent by huge quantities. This, in turn, will diminish the efficacy of ordinary voters even further than is the case now, leading to even more hostility toward the political process than already, for good reason, exists.
ReplyDelete