GOP Pushes to Further Corporatize Elections
RNC: Ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates unconstitutional
An effort by the Republican National Committee may further corporatize the electoral process.
The RNC filed a legal brief Tuesday arguing that a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates is unconstitutional.
The Huffington Post reports:
The ban, part of a 1907 anti-corruption law that helped curb the influence of corporate robber barons, is one of the last bulwarks of campaign finance law left after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision two years ago.
As ThinkProgress notes, an overturning of the ban would have massive consequences:
If a court accepted the RNC's argument, it would have to strike down the entire federal ban on corporate donations -- leaving Exxon and Halliburton free to give money to any candidate they'd like. Congress might be able to restore part of this ban by enacting legislation. But, of course, that would require any such bill disadvantaging corporations to survive John Boehner's House and Mitch McConnell's filibuster.
Moreover, if the court accepts the RNC's argument, it will effectively destroy any limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals or corporation can give to candidates.
Josh Gerstein at Politico writes that the argument could be a boon to the Democrats' portrayal of the GOP:
Whatever its constitutional merits, the Republican argument could be a political liability for the party as Democrats are likely to portray it as further evidence that the GOP is beholden to corporate America. On the other hand, the near-complete breakdown of campaign finance limits during the current presidential race gives something of a boost to those contending that the few remaining restraints are pointless.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
An effort by the Republican National Committee may further corporatize the electoral process.
The RNC filed a legal brief Tuesday arguing that a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates is unconstitutional.
The Huffington Post reports:
The ban, part of a 1907 anti-corruption law that helped curb the influence of corporate robber barons, is one of the last bulwarks of campaign finance law left after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision two years ago.
As ThinkProgress notes, an overturning of the ban would have massive consequences:
If a court accepted the RNC's argument, it would have to strike down the entire federal ban on corporate donations -- leaving Exxon and Halliburton free to give money to any candidate they'd like. Congress might be able to restore part of this ban by enacting legislation. But, of course, that would require any such bill disadvantaging corporations to survive John Boehner's House and Mitch McConnell's filibuster.
Moreover, if the court accepts the RNC's argument, it will effectively destroy any limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals or corporation can give to candidates.
Josh Gerstein at Politico writes that the argument could be a boon to the Democrats' portrayal of the GOP:
Whatever its constitutional merits, the Republican argument could be a political liability for the party as Democrats are likely to portray it as further evidence that the GOP is beholden to corporate America. On the other hand, the near-complete breakdown of campaign finance limits during the current presidential race gives something of a boost to those contending that the few remaining restraints are pointless.
An effort by the Republican National Committee may further corporatize the electoral process.
The RNC filed a legal brief Tuesday arguing that a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates is unconstitutional.
The Huffington Post reports:
The ban, part of a 1907 anti-corruption law that helped curb the influence of corporate robber barons, is one of the last bulwarks of campaign finance law left after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision two years ago.
As ThinkProgress notes, an overturning of the ban would have massive consequences:
If a court accepted the RNC's argument, it would have to strike down the entire federal ban on corporate donations -- leaving Exxon and Halliburton free to give money to any candidate they'd like. Congress might be able to restore part of this ban by enacting legislation. But, of course, that would require any such bill disadvantaging corporations to survive John Boehner's House and Mitch McConnell's filibuster.
Moreover, if the court accepts the RNC's argument, it will effectively destroy any limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals or corporation can give to candidates.
Josh Gerstein at Politico writes that the argument could be a boon to the Democrats' portrayal of the GOP:
Whatever its constitutional merits, the Republican argument could be a political liability for the party as Democrats are likely to portray it as further evidence that the GOP is beholden to corporate America. On the other hand, the near-complete breakdown of campaign finance limits during the current presidential race gives something of a boost to those contending that the few remaining restraints are pointless.