Further tangling alliances?

The Supreme Court ruled last week on a politically-charged first amendment case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ruled that companies may use their profits to spend as much as they want to support or oppose individual candidates for political office. This decision effectively overturns two relatively recent cases, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), which relied in large part on the earlier Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990). Those cases rested largely on the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, which was passed as an override of President Truman’s veto, and prohibited independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions in support of candidates.

Supporters of the decision hail a victory for free speech; detractors decry what they view as a tidal shift of influence in favor of the corporate sector. As usual, I find myself appreciating the rational arguments on both sides, and shaking my head at all of the partisan rhetoric that clouds the issue.

The specific case at hand involved a disparaging video about then-Senator (and Presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton that a company produced using its own funds. That fact alone was enough to turn the case into a predictable firestorm of politicking.

I have no interest in wading into any of those politically-charged waters; however, I do think it’s worth pointing out a couple of things.

Our default in any challenge to free speech should be in favor of the first amendment. Any limits thereto should be imposed only after significant consideration and overwhelming evidence that limits are required. The 1957 dissenting opinion in United States v. Automobile Workers stated that deeming an entity too powerful was not “sufficient justification for withholding First Amendment rights from any group – labor or corporate.” That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Ultimately, and unfortunately, I am uncomfortable with this new reality not so much because of the influence it allows large, well-financed entities to yield but because of the bright spotlight it shines on this influence. The fact is that these entities already use their considerable bank accounts to lobby lawmakers every day. They also lobby the public by supporting or impugning specific policies (veiled primarily in advertisements), hoping that the electorate will then rally behind the candidate who most closely aligns with the policy position. The Court’s decision merely permits an elevation of the game – lobbying the public directly on behalf of an individual candidate. I guess I am just happier when I remain blissfully unaware of the back room dealings, an exercise that will become decidedly more difficult in the near future.

Thus, rather than hand wringing over the effect of upping the ante in our current system, the debate should be whether the current state of influence peddling is acceptable within our legislative framework. Lobbying at all levels of politics is an immutable aspect of policy creation that has existed since governments were created. The challenge is striking the balance between ensuring lawmakers have access to the information they need to arrive at informed decisions and unscrupulous tactics that place lawmakers in the hip pockets of powerful interests.