Buying Votes

One of the most upsetting and perplexing Supreme Court decisions of this year involves the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (01/21/10) to remove regulations that restrict corporations from buying campaign commercials explicitly advocating the election or defeat of a political candidate. As President Obama pointed out in his criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision, “The last thing this country needs is to hand more influence over to lobbyists in Washington, or more power to special interests to decide the outcome of elections.” I agree with President Obama’s opinion that the Justices handed a huge victory to special interest groups and their lobbyists with the 5-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations.

President Obama, along with other Democrats, sees this ruling as a threat to democracy. The Republicans, on the other hand, applaud the Supreme Court’s decision as “a victory for free speech.” There is no question that the media influence public opinion. Consequently, if there are no restrictions, or limits, on spending by specific corporations or special interest groups in support of a candidate, it makes sense that this will result in moneyed interests having an unfair advantage in swaying public opinion to vote for their candidate. In the editorial section of the January 24, 2010 issue of The New York Times, Professor Kenner Mayer, of the University of Wisconsin, points out that there is no specific proof that stricter campaign financing rules would actually reduce corruption. In his editorial, he writes, “It seems like such an obvious relationship, but it has proven impossible to prove.” However, common sense dictates that greater access to the media will give corporations with large assets an unfair advantage in swaying public opinion in favor of electing specific candidates

Already the court decision has caused problems because it has left a loophole in the law that lawyers say will let companies pay for extensive political advocating, while avoiding disclosure requirements that the Supreme Court left in place. Corporations can now donate anonymously to non-profit civic leagues and trade associations; those groups can then finance political ads without listing the names of their donors. Non profit groups which do not have to disclose their donors can now use corporate contributions to buy political commercials in support of specific candidates, and the corporations can potentially operate behind the anonymity of their donations. .This is a very disappointing decision by the Supreme Court, one which holds great significance for us both as students of media and communication, and as citizens of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/28donate.html