What the Ruling Really Means:

Overview of the Citizens United Case

 

• The 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opens the door for all kinds of corporations (for profit, nonprofit, trade associations, foreign controlled, etc.) to spend unlimited amounts of money for or against any candidate.  The same applies to labor unions.  The decision does not permit direct contributions by corporations or unions to candidates or parties where those are now banned, such as in North Carolina – but that could be next if you follow the logic of this decision.  (NC allows corporations and unions to provide a minimum level of assistance to set up a regulated PAC that has only money collected from individuals – members, employees, stockholders, associates, etc of the entity.)

• The decision means corporations and unions can engage in “independent expenditures” – spending money on ads, for example, to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, but the spending can NOT be coordinated with a candidate or political party.  The definition of “coordination” becomes important, and that’s one thing NC and Congressional lawmakers will have to work on this year.  Corporations and unions can also now spend money on electioneering ads or mailings at any time during an election cycle; these of the messages that stop just short of expressly advocating election or defeat. They were often sponsored through 527 committees or other devises.  Under McCain-Feingold, corporations couldn’t fund them in a period 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.  That restriction is dead.

• The Supreme Court majority said corporations have the same First Amendment, free-speech rights as individuals when it comes to spending money for political expression. The other justices strongly disagreed. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the way they expanded the concept of corporate personhood. He wrote, “The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case.”  The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center noted: “The fact that they used the First Amendment as constitutional cover for their policy decision that corporate America has the same free speech rights as ordinary citizens only deepens the perversion of this ruling.”  

• The Roberts Court majority basically expanded the rights of property or wealth at the expense of the rights of voters. Citizens are being cheated while their personhood is co-opted to give owners of wealth more political power.  This is a modern version of defining slaves as three-fifth of a person in order to diminish them and elevate the political power of slave owners. It is truly perverse. The decision points to a gapping hole in the U.S. Constitution when it comes to protecting the vote and the voting process; there is no protected right to vote, as there is in the NC Constitution.

• The likely result of the decision won’t be Exxon sponsoring million-dollar ads against Sen. Jones; the ads will be sponsored by front groups with pretty names, which receive money from another front group, whose backers will not be disclosed anywhere.  Unions, 501(c)(4)s, trade associations and other entities will spend more on independent expenditures.  Tax laws still apply to how non-profits use money, but they can be manipulated.  North Carolina has experience with hog producers funneling corporate money through a trade association to drown targeted state legislators with attack ads. We can expect more. 

• New requirements for disclosure and other regulations will be limited in how they can address the Citizens United case because the money trail can be so complicated.  We support efforts to gain more disclosure and to contain the damage of the decision, such as by banning all political spending by foreign nationals in US elections, but a more systemic approach is needed. Two long-term strategies proposed include a constitutional amendment that establishes the right to vote free from coercion, discrimination or property restrictions; and an amendment to define the artificial nature of corporations. A quicker, more direct remedy, however, is expanding public campaign financing programs.

• As the Democracy North Carolina statement said, the Supreme Court’s ruling shows how hostile it is to regulating the flow of money in politics.  Earlier decisions by the Roberts court pointed in this direction.  Rather than focus on trying to stop the flow of bad money, the best remedy is to take a new approach:  Create new streams of clean money through public financing programs that reward candidates who focus on voters, not big-time fundraising and wealthy special interests.  

• Sign the Democracy North Carolina petition to show you care about protecting our elections from outside intervention, whether domestic or foreign!

 

Taking Action After Citizens United

If you're concerned about the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, there's lots you can do to help us lessen the influence of special interest money over politics and policies. To learn about your options, contact us or help us spread the word about Voter-Owned Elections. The Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case will make it difficult to restrict the flow of money in politics, but it does not stop us from creating alternate flows of money that free candidates from having to depend on special interest donors for campaign funds. Sign the petition to express your outrage at the decision and support reform here.