Supreme Court opens floodgates of influence
The U.S. Supreme Court has given us just what we didn't need -- more money in politics, more sway for lobbyists and moneyed interests, and less proportional value in the individual votes of ordinary citizens.
In striking down limits on corporate political spending, overturning two precedents in the process, the Supreme Court has removed all pretense that ideas, not dollars, are the preeminent force in American governance.
In a decision likely to dramatically alter the course of the 2010 elections and beyond, the high court declared Thursday that "the government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority.
The government hasn't been "suppressing" corporate campaign spending so much as setting limits on the manner and amount of the spending, and the level and category of the race -- and it will continue to do so, even after this ruling. But government was already doing a poor job of policing the often-excessive impacts of political action committees, industry lobbyists, unions and other groups whose voices, many times louder than Mr. and Mrs. Voter, is too often decisive.
Justice John Paul Stevens, part of the majority in the two opinions that were overruled, had it right in his dissenting opinion Thursday. He called the opinion of the 5-4 majority "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt."
Expect a flood of corporate campaign giving -- because, after all, political donations are the most effective tool available for getting one's way in the halls of Congress and most state Legislatures. As the nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog organization Maplight.org points out, lawmakers' votes habitually align with the interest groups that fund their campaigns. Maplight cites these examples:
* Prescription drug imports: U.S. Senators who voted to block drug imports from other countries, as pharmaceutical companies hoped, received an average of $85,779 each from drug companies -- 69 percent more than was given to Senators who voted to allow those imports.
* Bucks for bankers: Members of Congress who voted for the $700 billion bank bailout received an average of $231,877 from financial institutions -- 54 percent more than members who voted against the bailout.
* Telecom industry immunity: House Democrats who flipped their positions to favor immunity for telecoms that cooperated with FBI wiretapping efforts received an average of $8,359 from AT&T, Verizon and Sprint's political action committees -- 68 percent more than Democrats who remained opposed to immunity. They settled for a mere $4,987 apiece.
Brace yourself for more of this tit-for-tat governance. Some might call this decision by the Supreme Court free speech. We call it lopsided representation. The solution: Follow the model of Connecticut, where, thanks to a new citizen-funded election system, 81 percent of sitting legislators avoided large donations from interest groups, leaving them free to make decisions based on constituents' best interests and their own consciences.
