J school hosts brown bag event

Panelists discussed the court ruling on political financing.

By Jared Grafman

Published Feb. 2, 2010

The first brown bag event of 2010 took place Monday to discuss the Jan. 21 Supreme Court decision allowing corporate financing in political campaigns.

The meeting was in Gannett Hall, and those in attendance discussed the effect the court ruling will have on future elections.

The meeting began with a brief overview of the case. Panel members discussed the noteworthy parts of the 183-page document.

Sandy Davidson, associate professor for Journalism Studies and adjunct associate law professor, said the syllabus of the Supreme Court case would provide a sufficient explanation of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

James Lewis Parks law professor Richard Reuben summarized his interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in one sentence.

"They basically said that the first amendment rights of corporations trump the power of the state to regulate, or to limit, the amount of money corporations can spend on behalf of candidates," Reuben said.

Reuben said the court rejected two important arguments. The first argument rejected was the idea that corporate wealth can unduly influence political debate. The second was corporations hold the view of all their individual shareholders.

"The big issue now is that corporations, both nonprofit and profit, are entitled to spend as much money out of their general treasury, as they want to, to influence political campaigns," Reuben said. "They don't have to go through political action committees anymore."

Charles Davis, associate professor and editorial department chairman of the Journalism School, said the Supreme Court decision did not do much to change what is already happening.

"What it effectively does is it turns us from an era of issue advertising into an era of express advocacy," Davis said. "Make sure you look at not only what the court does in its opinions, but what it doesn't do. And what it didn't do here was very significant."

Davis explained the court upheld the disclosure and disclaimer requirements required of the statute. Everything that is being sent still has to be disclosed. He said the Federal Elections Commission rules state anyone contributing a thousand dollars or more to the preparation and distribution of advertising or advocacy of an issue has to be disclosed.

Journalism School professor Betty Winfield discussed the political impact of the case.

"The court, in the majority opinion, said that 'independent expenditures including those by corporations do not give rise to corruption,' " Winfield said.

Near the end of the event, one audience member voiced his opinion on corporations using other people's money to speak in the voting, which he said can subvert the theory of "one man, one vote." He said the corporation would take a stance on one side of an issue, which would not represent the opinion of each person who spends money on that corporation.

At the end of the event, Winfield closed the discussion with remarks on what can result from the Supreme Court's decision.

"We are in a nebulous situation right now," Winfield said. "All we can do is guess the outcome."