Citizens United and SCOTUS

By Dave

I've been hesitant to post my thoughts about the Supreme Court ruling on corporate political donations. I know friends are adamantly opposed to it. They think it will open the door for a corporate takeover of American politics. I'm definitely concerned, but I also recognize that there are pretty good arguments that the ruling was correct and that everything may not be so dire.

Here's some of my thinking:

First, I recognize that this is a first amendment issue. These are often, but not always, made with the potential consequences being a secondary or even tertiary consideration. For instance, the KKK is allowed to demonstrate and march even though they may pick up new recruits and will almost always offend. They have the right, regardless of the consequence. But by the same token, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it could result in dire consequences. So there's not necessarily a clear line. I highly recommend Glenn Greenwald's discussion on these points.

Second, even if the ruling may have been right on the merits, a possible effect of this ruling is that corporations will take a tighter hold over our political system. Maybe true. But let's be honest, even under the old rules corporations had a fairly tight grip on the system. Worse, there were loopholes that allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money in ways that were difficult to track. They could, for instance, air "educational" ads so long as they didn't officially endorse a candidate. The ruling creates an opportunity to make things more transparent. There may be other potential upsides.

For instance, instead of trying to limit political speech, congress could try to empower it. We could try to strengthen the power of the little guy, the people who only donate $25 or $100 every once in a while. Dick Durbin has a pretty cool idea:

The idea, which already works well in New York City and other localities, is to set up a public-financing system that rewards candidates who attract small donors. House candidates, for example, who raise at least $50,000 in donations of $100 or less would be eligible for $900,000 in public money. The president must move the bill to the center of his agenda and mobilize his 13 million 2008 contributors to pressure Congress to enact it.

Anyways, like I said, I'm not a 100% and so I've been hesistant to post. But I'd like to hear what other people are thinking. Do the potential consequences of unlimited corporate donations outweigh the First amendment right to unlimited political speech? Could greater transparency be a worthwhile trade-off? What other reforms could be enacted that would make the system better overall?

The last question is important to me. If Congress can use this as an opportunity to pass smart reform, they could make the overall system better off. Then again, there's not a lot of proof, at least right now, that Congress is capable of making smart decisions.