For Immediate Release
Mary Boyle, Common Cause, (202) 736-5770
Corporate Democracy: Likely Fallout From Supreme Court Citizens United Decision
WASHINGTON - The impending Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
which could be announced as early as Tuesday, is expected to
significantly expand the role of the most powerful special interests in
financing American elections. The Court appears poised to turn its back
on more than 100 years of law and pave the way for corporations and
unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on direct campaigns to elect
or defeat federal candidates.
Such a dramatic decision would further reduce trust in government
policymaking and take our country in the wrong direction. It is hard to
imagine how America achieves real progress and tackles critical
challenges - like health care, climate change and the economy - when
our elected representatives are locked in an all-out fundraising arms
race that makes them both more dependent on and vulnerable to the
powerful special interests opposed to change.
In preparation for this decision, Common Cause has prepared a memo
that reviews the potential fallout from this case, the legal history,
examines political spending of corporations versus unions and looks at
a state - California - that allows unlimited corporate political
spending. It also identifies what Common Cause considers the only
viable policy option for moving forward in a post Citizens United
world: a new system of paying for political campaigns based on a blend
of small donors and limited public funding that allows candidates to
run highly competitive races without relying on wealthy special
"The path to the future should be small-donor democracy, not corporate democracy," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar.
Lifting the ban on corporate political spending could unleash a flood
of money into the political system and further diminish the public's
voice. Precisely how much money is hard to say, but consider the
- Last year's Congressional and
Presidential election was the most expensive in history, with total
political and issue advertising exceeding $3 billion nationwide.
Corporations and unions could more than double this amount - every
election - if they put as much into political ads as they already spend
lobbying Congress, $6 billion in the last election cycle.
health and insurance industries alone spent more than $1.6 billion
lobbying Congress during the 2008 election cycle, nearly double the
$896 million that all winning congressional candidates (435 House
candidates and 35 Senate candidates) spent on their campaigns during
the same period.
- PhRMA recently
launched a $150 million advertising campaign to support Senator Baucus'
health care plan (without a public insurance option) - more than the
$140 million spent by all 55 winners of hot congressional races in 2008
combined. That's one trade association on one bill.
the 2008 elections, winning candidates for the House of Representatives
spent an average of $1.4 million - roughly equivalent to what the
health care industries are spending per day so far this year to lobby
Congress on health care reform.
the Supreme Court lifts the ban on using corporate profits for
political spending, corporations would likely spend vastly more than
labor unions. During the 2008 election cycle, corporations outspent
organized labor 4:1 on PAC contributions, but 61:1 on lobbying.
This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.
Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.