Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Groups Look to Rein in Corporate Power After Citizens United
Focus is on maximum disclosure of political spending
Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission granted corporations (and unions) the right to directly and expressly back political candidates, and triggered an enormous new wave of political spending. Now watchdog groups are trying to find ways to make sure voters can see who is funding which candidates.
Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission granted corporations (and unions) the right to directly and expressly back political candidates, and triggered an enormous new wave of political spending. Now watchdog groups are trying to find ways to make sure voters can see who is funding which candidates. In a web seminar sponsored by the Business Ethics Network last week, groups concerned about the role of money in politics gathered to review strategies for increased disclosure.
Norm Ornstein, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, who once helped craft the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, said that he was struck and “even a little bit heartened” by the fact that Sarah Palin railed against crony capitalism during her Labor Day speech in Iowa saying, in effect, “what do we suppose those fat cats want for their money?”
“It suggests to me,” Ornstein said, “that there is at least a glimmer of a possibility that we might be able to build a very unusual type of coalition against what has become an utterly appalling landscape of influence peddling by enormous monied interests and more and more overt, almost shakedown schemes by political figures to get the money they want from corporations and individuals.”
The Citizens United decision did not strike down any rules that require disclosure of political spending, but loopholes in the tax system and lax campaign finance rules allow corporations to give money in ways that are very hard to track, disclosure advocates say.
According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in the 2010 election 67 percent of all outside (non political party) spending came from groups that had been freed to contribute by the Citizens United decision with non-profit 501(c) groups dominating spending on election ads.
IRS rules state that 501(c)(4) groups don’t have to name their contributors as long as electioneering is not their primary purpose, but this can be difficult to enforce in a meaningful way. Groups can form and carry out campaign work and then later switch to other activities so that political projects don’t appear to dominate their activities.
With Congress deadlocked over most issues, campaign finance reform advocates say it’s more prudent to focus on promoting regulatory measures that could increase disclosure.
One possibility would be to get the IRS to enforce its requirements for 501(c)(4)s. Another would be to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to require publicly traded companies to report their political spending to shareholders.
Aside from the way it could corrupt the political process, experts point out, unregulated corporate spending on politics poses risks for company shareholders.
Ten corporate law academics recently petitioned the SEC to adopt rules to require that corporations communicate with shareholders about political use of corporate funds.
The idea has support from major institutional investors including the International Corporate Governance Network, which represents $18 trillion in assets.
Any rule change at SEC will be a time consuming process. In the meantime some groups are trying to get corporations to voluntarily release information about their political spending.
Since 2003 the Center for Political Accountability has been working to get companies to establish rules for disclosure of political spending and shareholder oversight.
Valentina Judge of CPA said that such resolutions are good business practices that can protect companies from embarassing contributions that can cause reputational damage.
The Target corporation learned the pitfalls of political donations last year, she pointed out.
The company endured bad press and boycott threats after it made a $150,000 donation to a group that supported a candidate opposed to gay rights.
CPA is preparing to release an index of corporations that have adopted policies on corporate spending.
It’s urgent that groups focus on disclosure strategies that could work fast, said Craig Holman of Public Citizen.
“We just was a 427 percent increase in outside spending in the 2010 election,” he said, “This is a phenomenal increase … and this was just a test run, a trial. Corporations and CEOs were just starting to get involved and were pretty cautious.”
In the 2012 elections, he said, “I believe we are going to see numbers that are off the charts.”
The only thing that could force more disclosure right away would be an executive order from President Obama, he said.
“We need President Obama to step up to the plate and sign an order requiring enhanced political disclosure for contractors to show that contracts are being based on merit and not contributions.”
Another short term effort could involve getting the president to appoint Federal Elections Commissioner who would work to require funding disclosure on television ads, said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.
The most pressing need, however, she said, is is a public education campaign to translate the current situation around corporate funded politics into terms that meet average Americans.
“You have to build a public base before you can get into specific answers,”
she said. “The pot is not yet boiling.”
“The reality is that the other side that is supporting this outcome is outgunning the reform community and those that see the problem by a million to one,” she said. “It doesn’t mean give up. It means you’ve got to start thinking about 21 century solutions and approaches.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
28 Comments so far
Show Allumm, headline writers! It's REIN IN. The term is borrowed from equestrianism.
It was a Freudian. The author meant what was written rather than what was intended to be written. Though more appropriately it should read, Reign of rather than Reign in. Reading a bit of the article affirms the assumption. Distracting with ineffective disclosure laws will do nothing to Rain In but will only further the Reign of Corporate Power.
Did they repost this artilce after making corrections? It's spelled correctly as "ReIn" on my screen. Or am I misunderstanding the previous posts? Which brings up a question... I swear a month or two ago I read an artice, then came back a day later and 5 or 6 paragraphs were far different? Am I mistaken?
Thanks!
"Reform" is not enough.
You CANNOT "reform" a murderous empire funded by war profiteers.
More than 50,000 Americans die every year alone because they cannot afford health insurance and more than 50 million do not have such insurance. But our society - government and business - is willing to tolerate those figures.
If this nation is willing to allow 50,000 preventable deaths every year of its own citizens, it's no wonder the lives of millions of people abroad mean nothing to it.
So the wars will continue as long as the war profiteers make their bloody bundles and pass some of it on to their fellow criminals in the White House and Congress and on the Supreme Court.
Close to 100,000 people die every year and over 300,000 have "serious outcomes" because they do have medical insurance that lets them buy completely bogus and harmful drugs created by Big Pharma and approved by the corrupt FDA.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30
I believe ONLY a simple Constitutional amendment banning all private contribution (It would become a felony punishable by mandatory prison terms) and set up
- publicly funded election processes
- free time on TV and radio (during 3 months)for the privilege of using the airwaves
- equal time equal access to ALL candidates with failure resulting in PERMANENT removal of privilege of broadcasting.
WHO is behind this SIMPLE yet COMPREHENSIVE amendment?
TELL ME
The changes proposed in this article are too small and far from resolving the problem!
Furthermore we should reduce the number of lobbyists to 400 (perhaps less) with 90 % representing directly people and only 10% (or 0%) from corporations, churches or even Unions. A drawing would re-assign the privilege every 3-5years.
Maybe Chinese Corporations can buy the congressmen that they want.
Sure, they can form their own version of AIPAC. Look at how well that has worked out for Israel, they've already succeeded in annexing Washington, DC.
Rather than arguing about 'new disclosure rules,' how about eliminating the problem with a simple Constitutional Amendment, "A Corporation is not a Person . . . ." ...................................................................................................................................
The article is complete crap. The American Enterprise Institute is a corporate lobbying group, so how is their opinion relevant?
LOTTERY ELECTIONS
At local level any voter can register as candidate.
A set number of lottery winners run for local offices.
For state elections, only local reps can register for lottery.
A set number of reps are drawn and allowed to run.
For national elections, only statewide reps can register for lottery.
A set number of reps are drawn and allowed to run for Congress.
For Presidential elections, only Congressmen can register for lottery.
A set number of reps are drawn and allowed to run for President.
No elected person can ever run for re-election to same office.
No advertising, contributions, etc allowed.
(Lots of public meetings, debates, etc.)
Also, here is a way for voters to verify their vote was properly counted. The way it works is akin to a raffle stub where you retain the duplicate half after punching or stamping both halves in a voting booth. Then you combine that idea with a return to using paper ballots for the vote counting. (The idea that it takes too much time to hand count is manure put forth to enable computer fraud. The people who volunteer to count votes one evening every couple of years enjoy it, and everyone is watching everyone.) There will still be some fraud, but there’s no way to steal entire elections with a few mouse clicks.
Note on votes; The code numbers of each voting stub would be published so the voters can anonymously go online or to the courthouse and match their stub.
Didn't waste my time reading beyond a few paragraphs. The problem is not disclosure. The problem is Citizens United. It must be over turned with a constitutional amendment.
Congress could fix the Citizens United problem with a simple change to the statutory language, but won't because most in congress don't mind the decision.
"Only American citizens or groups of American citizens may contribute money to political campaigns. Any group of persons, whether in the form of a corporation, partnership, or other entity, may contribute to political campaigns, but any such group bears the burden of proving that 100% of the members of the group are American citizens. Any violation of this law shall be punished by . . ."
Such a law would not eliminate all corporate political donations, but it would restrict them greatly, because almost no large corporation has 100% American citizens as stockholders. It would eliminate all or almost all Fortune 500 corporations from political contributions.
a good start but still room for cheating See my suggestion for a Constitutional amendment with public funding only!
Equal access and financial help for each party and FREE EQUAL time on TV and radio are also essential (Rules existing in Europe).
Yeap, I can just see a few puny groups of disorganized citizens with no money and even less pull reining in on Wall Street gazillions. It's nice to dream!
None of this will work since both parties get unlimited money. The only solution is to vote for NO INCUMBENTS unless they actively and successfully support legislation to stop this corporate bribery practice. NO INCUMBENTS no matter what is the ONLY SOLUTION.
Another way to stop this legalized bribery is to organize support for a constitutional amendment to limit the President, Senators and Members of Congress to one 6-year term. This would eliminate the need to spend time fundraising, would eliminate threats that hurt re-election chances. Then those we elect could focus on governing and hopefully they would make decisions based on their merits and what they believed was in the best interest of the country.
I am for limits but inexperienced officials do not work well for years and acquired experience is precious (Do we fire a good employee after 6 years in the private sector?).
Making all bribery (even a trip or a restaurant meal) illegal and punishable by mandatory 1 year in jail and and years of ineligibility to public office might help A LOT!
Why are BAD incumbents re-elected? The power of MONEY and TV ads (make TV ads free and of equal time for all candidates during 3-6 months as they do in Europe).
Then quite electing inexperienced thugs! Require candidates to prove and show they have experience and a plan... not just a talking head. Most issues are not rocket science. House and senate process would be mandatory to apply!
"The only thing that could force more disclosure right away would be an executive order..."
diktats have no place in a free society.
The system was broken long before Citizens United. Citizens United is just the icing on the cake.
The media is controlled by the money
those that own the media
those who provide advertising revenue call the shots.
Also, money can directly influence politicians in different legal ways. Here are some:-
Free trips to Israel, complete with indoctrination for a week.
Trips on board the rich mans yacht, holiday home or the free use of a private jet.
Favorable treatment to a corporation owned by the congressman
Favorable treatment to family and friends of the congressman
Cheap legal loans.
The threat of good or bad publicity in the media.
The politicians are often part and parcel of the money from the beginning, having investments in exxon, etc.
And, oh yes, illegal influences:-
Extortion - e.g. exposure of the sexual life of the politician.
Bribes
The threat of assassination e.g. JFK.
The system also acts as a filter that prevents decent people succeeding in politics.
For example, in England when Tony Blair succeeded in replacing half the House of Lords with people who were elected at the same time as the rest of the parliament. The problem was, that the the House of Lords was obstructing some quite nasty bills. By tradition, members of the House of Lords were not elected, but they inherited their seats. By the laws of chance in the lottery of birth, half of the members of the House of Lords were decent people, and nastier laws, such as the nastier bits of the English version of the Patriot Act were not being passed. Tony had them replaced with politicians.
Citizens United, or not, we live in a plutocracy. The rich rule. The people are given the hyped illusion of rule.
I would like to propose a system where eligable people (all adults) have
a social security number, and the representatives are chosen by means of
a televised lotto on a weekly basis. The digits of the lotto will form
a social security number, and hence choose a person. That person will
be asked to become a politician for 3 years. The position must be paid
well enough to make it attractive.
Hence, our politicians wiould be chosen from our population at random,
with no chance for indoctrination or arm twisting by the big money or by
AIPAC, and with no need for popularism or raising of funds. By the laws
of mathematics and random numbers, a randomly chosen selection of people
WILL be completely representative of the people. The peoples
representatives will of course need access to experts.
Another solution is to admit, as the anti-federalists argued, that democracy cannot work in any large scale country, and to change our system of government to a demarchy, or government by random selection. A random selection of citizen leaderss could not do worse than the corporate selection of "leaders."
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/89demarchy.html
"I would rather be governed by the first two thousand people in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand people on the faculty of Harvard University." William F. Buckley, Jr.
Dave Gresham and Tom Carberry,
Our proposals have similarities.
The first step is recognizing that we have an electoral system ruled by wealth. CD has helped me to remove the "worlds greatest democracy" blinders. The experiment of parliamentary democracy has run long enough for us to see why it does not work, but the propaganda blinders are amazingly strong.
If there is ever an opportunity to start again, such as when the old Russian or French aristocracies fell, then these ideas could be used. Climate change and oil depletion will bring major upheavals to the USA, and it may one day pay to have alternate ideas worked out in advance.
We need two things to get the big money out of politics:
1.) A FREE PUBLIC CABLE TV CHANNEL devoted exclusively to giving free and equal air time to candidates, campaigns and elections, and
2.) A very large and powerful grassroots organization -- more powerful than the NRA -- a CONSUMERS' REFORM ASSOCIATION (CRA).
yes freefallen and even more easy is this proposal I made above (see my 3 comments):
"Why are BAD incumbents re-elected?
The power of MONEY and TV ads (make TV ads free and of equal time for all candidates during 3-6 months - before elections - as they do in Europe, at least in France). "
This makes sense as part of the privilege of using public airways.
Unbalanced coverage of candidates, even outside of specific times for ads is also severely controlled in Europe.
YES: the candidate of the 2-3 communist parties (only 1 this year I think) get the same amount of time as Sarkozy in the presidential race in France....
JUST IMAGINE NADER AND FEINGOLD?SANDERS (2good potential populist party candidates) with the SAME amount of time at EACH presidential debate!
It seems clear that the author was only interested in immediate solutions, which necessarily means the executive branch. Are y'all saying you're not interested in any disclosure orders or increased enforcement that might make the money trail more transparent before the next election? It's a constitutional amendment or nothing?