Column: Finance legislation needed immediately
Published Feb. 23, 2010
Last week, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., announced their intention to draft a bill in the coming weeks to address the recent Supreme Court decision regarding corporate campaign finance.
In January, the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on corporate campaign donations violated First Amendment rights. Due to the 5-4 decision, corporations no longer face restrictions on donating to political campaigns, political action committees and electioneering outfits.
I find this thought to be wildly disturbing, and according to a Gallup poll, 80 percent of Americans agree with me. Although the opinions written by Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens used a lot of logistical gymnastics in interpreting First Amendment rights, I find the basic assertions absolutely ridiculous. Granting these rights to corporations, calling them "associations of citizens" is ludicrous.
Corporations are not afforded other First Amendment rights because corporations are not equivalent to citizens. Corporations are subject to restrictions on discrimination against their own worker's First Amendment rights. Corporations don't vote, they don't run for office, and they certainly don't pay the same taxes that normal citizens do.
The implications of corporations being given a free pass to spend all the money they please to buy legislative support completely undermines all the work our government has done to clean up the lobbying system. Now, corporations can lobby for themselves by providing an endless revenue stream to sympathetic legislators.
Not to call our representatives unethical, but recent history and the absence of regulations that would require transparency, and disclosure of such transactions make me doubtful that things won't turn worse than they were under the Abramoff model.
The worst thing about the Supreme Court decision is it ignores the implications of removing restrictions on campaign finance without additional restrictions concerning disclosure.
What the White House and Democrats are trying to do in the next few weeks is to establish a system of transparency, so this ridiculous decision doesn't completely derail the democratic process. The list of goals released last week include requiring advertisements endorsing or opposing candidates to disclose their donors, making corporations disclose their political expenditures with their shareholders and make the knowledge publicly available via the Web and disallowing companies with foreign owners (at least 20 percent foreign ownership) from making contributions.
However, these measures are simply trying to contain a fire that is already burning. We live in a political climate where money wins elections and can effectively buy votes. In an America where there are no restrictions on how much a company can give, how long until politicians eventually just ignore voters altogether and rely on corporations to provide the money to secure the votes? What encouragement does a candidate have to actually appeal to voters, if he or she actually wants to win?
These are scary questions, with even more frightening answers. I wholly support efforts from the Democrats to curtail the corruption free-for-all this recent court decision allows. However, if this country is to return to a model of government that puts citizens at the center and not private interests, then something more drastic needs to be done.
Corporate America has been coasting on the backs of taxpayers and voters for far too long in this country. This decision takes the democratic process out of the hands of the voters and turns our country into an aristocracy. Scary.
Jordan Stein is a senior political science major and a campaign volunteer for Columbia mayoral candidate Sid Sullivan. She can be reached at jesf25@mail.mizzou.edu