• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Citizens United: Nightmare vs Reality

    When the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not ban books in order to protect incumbents from critical speech, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann compared the decision to Dredd Scott, warning that after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

    It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up, no matter whether you are conservative or liberal, it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal, can now be entirely bought and sold, no actual citizens required in the campaign-fund-raising process.

    It has only been six months since the decision, but as Mother Jones reports today we can already see if Olbermann’s nightmare is coming true:

    Just as predicted, campaign ads that would previously have been illegal are now airing in key midterm election races. But the players funding those ads aren’t the ones you might expect. It turns out that some of the first groups to exploit Citizens United aren’t corporations, but labor unions.

    So big labor, not corporations, are the ones exploiting Citizens United. That is interesting given who the Democrats in Congress have specifically exempted from their DISCLOSE Act, which is billed as a solution to the Citizens United-corporate-political-spending nightmare. As eight former Federal Election Commissioners recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal:

    Perhaps the most striking thing about the Disclose Act is that, while the Supreme Court overturned limits on spending by both corporations and unions, Disclose seeks to reimpose them only on corporations. The FEC must constantly fight to overcome the perception that the law is merely a partisan tool of dominant political interests. Failure to maintain an evenhanded approach towards unions and corporations threatens public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.

    Citizens United did not make it legal to buy and sell politicians. There are sill bribery laws on the books for that. All Citizens United did was uphold some of the most important rights in our country: the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate.

    The DISCLOSE Act, however, is designed to do exactly the opposite. At the committee markup Rep.Michael Capuano (D-MA) said that he wished it were possible to ban all outside groups from participating in elections and that he hoped the DISCLOSE Act would do just that. This is what the DISCLOSE Act is really about: protecting incumbents favored by big labor and their leftist allies.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Citizens United: Nightmare vs Reality

    1. Tom Beebe, Missouri says:

      Would a ban on contributions from ALL groups, with no limits on same from individuals, pass SCOTUS? I believe with anti-laundering provisions and full, timely disclosure, this would reduce the corruption from contributions by special interest groups and organizations designed to hide individual contributors' identities. If not found legal, I'd suggest putting it into an ammendment along with term limits, the latter to discourage buying already elected officials. After all, the return on a lame duck isn't all that attractive. What do YOU think? I'd like to hear your opinion sent to tbeebe6535 at yahoo dot com. Think and thanks.

    2. Pingback: Citizens United: Nightmare vs Reality « Faulk For Congress

    3. Pingback: This is what the DISCLOSE Act is really about: protecting incumbents favored by big labor and their leftist allies

    4. Lou, Tucson AZ says:

      The destruction of our country is most assuredly a foregone conclusion if we don't rise up and fight! Unions in general represent far too much power and influence on politics and that power is unchecked. It needs to stop.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.