The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously stayed the decision of the Montana Supreme Court in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, in which the Montana court explicitly thumbed its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court and the Citizens United decision. The stay itself is not surprising—most assumed that the Court would stay the Montana court’s version of jury nullification and many expect the Supreme Court to summarily reverse the lower court.
What is surprising, however, is the separate statement of Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer (notably, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not join the separate statement). Justice Ginsburg urges the Court to grant certiorari and reexamine the Court’s conclusion in Citizens United that independent expenditures do not cause corruption “in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiances.”
What a cynical and insulting way to describe the activities of Americans, like IJ clients SpeechNow.org and David Keating, who use their resources to attempt to persuade their fellow citizens of the wisdom of their political view.
Interestingly, Justice Ginsburg cites no source for this remarkable accusation and it is not clear if she means that all expenditures are designed to “buy candidates’ allegiances” or just some. Regardless, if Justice Ginsburg believes that people spend money in elections “to buy candidates’ allegiances” and not to persuade others that their political view is correct, then her view that the government should be able to throw people in prison for producing a film or book about politics finally makes sense. Fortunately, other justices on the Court have, for now, more respect for American voters, candidates, and political activists that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.
Perennial campaign-finance scold Fred Wertheimer from Democracy 21 has never seen a speech restriction he didn’t like. So it comes as no surprise that Wertheimer recently published an opinion piece on CNN.com declaring the Super PACs are, in his words, “a disaster for democracy” and an “unmitigated disaster.” Why? Well, because Super PACs let certain people speak more than Wertheimer likes. So his proposed answer is to resurrect the long-dead DISCLOSE Act from the grave in order to get those disfavored speakers to shut up.
In its most-recent incarnation, the DISCLOSE Act would force independent groups—whose speech does not raise any specter of corruption—to list their top five contributors in each advertisement. And it would require the head of those groups to appear on camera and say that their organization approved the message. If those provisions seem pointless because 1) Super PACs already disclose the identity of their contributors and 2) the group wouldn’t have put out the advertisement unless it agreed with its message, you’re right. The dirty secret of this DISCLOSE Act, like its predecessor, is that it’s not about information; it’s about chilling speech. As my colleague Paul Sherman previously noted, “For the reform lobby, the fact that some groups might stop speaking rather than comply with these new burdens is a feature, not a bug.”
The chance that this newest speech-squelching legislation will become law is between slim and none, and slim just left town. That’s a good thing; although Wertheimer complains that Super PACs let “a relatively few super-rich individuals and other wealthy interests to have greatly magnified and undue influence over the results of our elections,” that view betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how elections actually work.
The speech police see voters as empty vessels that candidates and groups can hoodwink and manipulate. That condescending view of the American electorate, however, is just plain wrong. Instead, the whole purpose of political campaigns is persuasion. Candidates and groups can only present information and arguments to the public. It is ultimately the voter who weighs that information and decides whom to cast a ballot for. Super PACs help improve democracy by giving voters another source of information to consider.
It’s odd to say that people can be made better off by limiting the voices they can hear from and consider, but that’s the argument that Wertheimer and his ilk make. Fortunately for Americans, “[t]he First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves” and to hear from everyone, Super PACs included.
In the world of public interest law, nothing is possible without clients who are willing to stand up for their rights against overwhelming odds. The Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics were privileged to have two such clients in Edward Crane and David Keating.
Crane and Keating have a long history of fighting for free speech against burdensome campaign finance laws. Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, was one of the plaintiffs in Buckley v. Valeo, the seminal 1976 decision that struck down major portions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. And Keating, who has long had to navigate campaign finance laws as executive director of the Club for Growth, has recently been named president of the Center for Competitive Politics.
Back in 2008, Crane, Keating and others teamed up to form SpeechNow.org, a group that wanted to raise and spend money to promote or oppose candidates based on their support for the First Amendment. Federal law prohibited them from doing so, so SpeechNow.org and its donors—represented by IJ and CCP—filed suit against the Federal Election Commission. The result was SpeechNow.org v. FEC, in which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that individuals and groups have a First Amendment right to pool unlimited amounts of money to spend on independent political speech. That ruling led directly to the creation of so-called “Super PACs.”
Now, writing in The Wall Street Journal, Crane and Keating are stepping up to defend the results of that decision and the power it gives to grassroots groups to educate voters:
[I]n Buckley [v. Valeo] the court ruled that individuals could spend unlimited amounts to support a federal candidate if those expenditures were not coordinated with the candidate's campaign. SpeechNow.org went further. It held that the First Amendment allows two, or four, or 400 or more individuals to pool their resources and exercise the same right to make independent expenditures that one individual could make under Buckley. Hence, Super PACs.
Money is a proxy for information in campaigns. Yet Americans spend as much on potato chips as they do on all federal elections ($3.6 billion in 2010). Maybe that partly explains why most Americans cannot name their congressman, much less say where he or she stands on the issues.
That's why we believe Super PACs are a good thing. In the recent Republican South Carolina primary, Super PACs reportedly outspent the candidates' campaigns by two to one. That means more information was available on the candidates and more interest in the campaigns has been generated. It could be argued that Super PACS are the reason the GOP primary campaign this year is a horse race and not a coronation.
Subscribers to the Journal can read the whole thing here.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s Joel Connelly has a column bemoaning how political campaigns in America are conducted and laying the blame for what he sees as the poor state of things at the feet of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Citizens United decision. Almost everything he says in the article is wrong—even if one were to put aside his unsourced statement that one Super PAC has received $50 billion in contributions. (This would be quite the accomplishment as the total amount of political spending in all elections in 2012 at the federal, state, and local level is expected to be $5 billion.) Moreover, I do not recall him filing any stories about how well politics functioned when McCain-Feingold was robustly throttling political speech in the days prior to Citizens United.
Coincidentally, Connelly’s piece came out the same day that Dan Abrams takes his fellow journalists to task for not understanding what Citizens United said and distorting its impact on elections. Abrams is no fan of the decision, but he does have an insight into the case that others do not: His father Floyd represented Mitch McConnell in the case. His insight leads him to take on those, like Connelly, that regurgitate what they hear others say about the case, regardless of whether it is accurate or not. His piece could have been written in response to Connelly’s column, but sadly, columns like Connelly’s have become the standard media analysis of the decision, not the exception.
Roll Call columnist Eliza Newlin Carney, who coined the term "Super PAC," has written a column titled “Some Super PAC Money Untraceable.” The column discusses the findings of a report titled “Auctioning Democracy,” released by Demos and the U.S. PIRG Education Fund.
As Carney reports, “Since 2010, 6.4 percent of the itemized contributions underwriting super PACs could not be traced to their original source, the report found.”
Wait a minute . . . this is the torrent of secret money we keep hearing about?
It seems to us that the really newsworthy thing about the Demos/PIRG study is that, for all the “reform” lobby’s complaining about secret money in politics, a full 93.6% of itemized contributions to Super PACs can be traced back to their original source.
columnist E.J. Dionne has been complaining
about Citizens United v. FEC
since before Citizens United
was decided. In his latest attack
on that ruling, Dionne argues that the decision doesn’t work “if you think we are a democracy and not a plutocracy.” As famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams notes in a response
, much of Dionne’s critique is based on false factual premises.
There is, however, another, more fundamental problem with Dionne’s critique. Like so many critics of Citizens United, Dionne largely ignores the intermediate step between political spending and electoral results: voting.
Citizens United freed corporations and unions to spend money on political speech. A later ruling, SpeechNow.org v. FEC—litigated by the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics—freed individuals and groups to form Super PACs to do the same thing. But neither ruling freed anyone to buy votes. The most corporations, unions, or Super PACs can do is attempt to persuade American voters.
Dionne apparently believes that voters should be spared from hearing Super PACs’ speech. But that sort of paternalism is precisely what the First Amendment forbids. As the Court noted in Citizens United, “The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
On Monday night, President Barack Obama announced that he is giving his blessing to Priorities USA, a Super PAC supporting his reelection. Campaign manager Jim Messina, writing at the Obama campaign’s official blog in a post titled “We Will Not Play by Two Sets of Rules,” declares that the change in position is a necessary response to Republican-favoring Super PACs. Thus, even though the president supports a constitutional amendment to allow for “reasonable limits” on campaign spending, winning reelection has to come first.
If this sounds familiar that’s because four years ago the Obama campaign issued a nearly identical apologia for the then-Senator’s decision to renege on a promise to take part in the presidential public-financing system. Then, as now, it was presented as a choice forced upon the campaign; he didn’t want to do it, but had to because the other side was “gaming” a “broken” system of regulations.
Such excuses are commonplace. Self-styled “reformers” claim they have to work within the system to change the system. But these excuses expose the hollowness of the arguments for stricter limits on campaign finance.
The theory behind campaign finance limits is that political spending causes corruption. But there is no evidence to support this belief and good reason to believe that both political spending and corruption are driven by excessive government power. Indeed, the response to the President’s change in position reveals that even the reform lobby doesn’t believe that political spending corrupts everybody. The New York Times criticized the President’s decision as a betrayal of his stated principles, but made no suggestion that the President is personally more corrupt because of it. Ditto Common Cause, which called the move merely “disappointing.” Ditto Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, who described the move as “regrettable” but “inevitable.”
It seems that many people believe that the President is guilty, at most, of hypocrisy. Perhaps they believe that the only candidates who are actually corrupted by money in politics are those who don’t think it’s appropriate for the government to ban or otherwise restrict peaceful political speech and association. But that is not a serious account of political corruption—it’s just cheerleading for one’s preferred side of the political debate.
For our part, we don’t object to President Obama encouraging people to give to Super PACs supporting his reelection. Nor do we believe that his decision to do so makes him any more or less corrupt. What we do object to is the apparent belief by some that a political candidate can demonstrate integrity by promising to ban other people’s political expression once elected.
Most of the popular arguments against the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC boil down to two sound bites: “Money isn’t speech” and “Corporations aren’t people.” Both of these statements are obviously true. But neither has anything to do with whether political spending—even spending by corporations—is protected by the First Amendment.
IJ has made these points many times, but we’re not alone. Writing yesterday in the Huffington Post, law professor Geoffrey Stone explains why it doesn’t matter that money isn’t speech:
Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Thus, a law that prohibits political candidates to spend money to pay for the cost of printing leaflets, or that forbids individuals to contribute to their favorite political candidates to enable them to buy airtime to communicate their messages, directly implicates the First Amendment. Such laws raise First Amendment questions, not because money is speech, but because the purpose of the expenditure or contribution is to facilitate expression.
Similarly, last month, law professor Kent Greenfield wrote an excellent takedown of the “corporations aren’t people” meme:
Citizens United did not hold corporations to be persons, and the court has never said corporations deserve all the constitutional rights of humans. The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from self-incrimination, for example, does not extend to corporations.
In fact, saying corporations are not persons is as irrelevant to constitutional analysis as saying that Tom Brady does not putt well in handicapping the NFL playoffs. The Constitution protects the rights of various groups and institutions — whether Planned Parenthood, Bob Jones University or the AFL-CIO — though they are not “natural persons.”
Neither of these professors appears to be a fan of the result in Citizens United. Nevertheless, they recognize—as any honest critic must—that the most popular arguments against that ruling are empty slogans. We hope that other critics of Citizens United will follow their lead.