John McCain Blasts Super PACs And Citizens United Ruling -- Again

Doubling down on comments he made earlier in the week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday's "Meet the Press" once again denounced the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision for unleashing the flood of money now "washing over politics."

McCain is a key backer of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose campaign and supporting super PACs have outspent former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his allies on television advertisements by a 4-1 ratio. But asked whether he condemned super PACs -- organizations that can accept unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions for independent campaign spending -- McCain said, "I condemn them on all sides and I condmen United States Supreme Court for their naivete" in the Citizens United decision, which he described as an "outrage."

Citizens United struck down limits on corporate spending set forth in a 2002 campaign finance law that McCain sponsored and helped pass through Congress. Soon thereafter, a federal appeals court, relying on Citizens United's logic, enabled the creation of super PACs by striking down limits on individual spending in campaigns.

Romney has long voiced agreement with Citizens United, famously rebutting a heckler complaining about the Court's extension of First Amendment rights to corporate speech by saying, "corporations are people, my friend."

"Now we have a casino owner and his wife," said McCain on Sunday, putting "10 million dollars into the race" to keep Gingrich's candidacy alive. Sheldon Adelson, the casino owner and Gingrich's friend, "makes a lot of his money out of Macau," McCain said, raising the specter of foreign money in American politics. Beyond his business success, Adelson is known for his right-wing views on Israeli politics, manifested through his strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"On both sides we have these incredible amounts of money and I guarantee you there will be a scandal," McCain continued. It was unclear, however, whether by "both sides" he meant Republicans and Democrats or Gingrich and Romney. Pro-Romney groups have spent twice as much as pro-Gingrich groups in Florida.

McCain made similar criticisms of the post-Citizens United landscape on Wednesday during a conference call to voice his support for Romney. "I think the outside super PACs and others is so disgraceful that I'm ashamed of the United States Supreme Court in their decision on United," McCain said.

Comments

[Craig Walenta]

05:24 PM on 05/18/2012

So why is it that nobody has a problem with the Huffington Post getting to say whatever it is that they want to say? Because perhaps you may agree with them or their point of view? So who gets to determine who gets to say that, the government? And there's your rub, you now get to trust the government as to who gets to be the press and who isn't and if the government gets to say that you're NOT in the press, well, then that's the end of you - and that could just as well be the Huffington Post.

[Peter Gatliff]

03:23 AM on 05/06/2012

Our SCOTUS packed by Conservatives is a travety to the average American. When I hear the word Conservative I grab my wallet.

[thurmanfaison]

02:55 PM on 02/01/2012

Thanks Senator McCain!

[addisonsteele]

03:01 PM on 01/30/2012

Gee, he should have thought about things like this when he voted to confirm each of the five radical reactionaries responsible for Citizens United.

[DANIELISTICALL]

02:53 PM on 01/30/2012

Disinformation about voting procedures
Voters may be given false information about when and how to vote, leading them to fail to cast valid ballots. For example, in recall elections for the Wisconsin State Senate in 2011, Americans for Prosperity (a conservative organization that was supporting Republican candidates) sent many Democratic voters a mailing that gave an incorrect deadline for absentee ballots. Voters who relied on the deadline in the mailing would have sent in their ballots too late for them to be counted. The organization said that the mistake was a typographical error.

[afreechild]

02:17 PM on 01/30/2012

Expensive advertisements distort political discourse because they have no obligation to be factual or truthful. Moreover, the excessive funding is often used to buy airtime to repeat a message until it is perceived to be fact, essentially brainwashing people to chose a candidate the way that they might chose a dish detergent.

This type of private sector financing of campaigns undemocratically undermines debate and discussion. Even worse, it puts any candidate who eschews such funding at a distinct disadvantage.

Popular democracy is by the people, for the people. Representation is based on the size of a population, not on the size of their wallets. Yet a corporation can spend millions of dollars to defeat any candidate, even if most of their workers and shareholders support that candidate.

[afreechild]

02:17 PM on 01/30/2012

This type of private sector financing of campaigns undemocratically undermines debate and discussion. Even worse, it puts any candidate who eschews such funding at a distinct disadvantage.

Popular democracy is by the people, for the people. Representation is based on the size of a population, not on the size of their wallets. Yet a corporation can spend millions of dollars to defeat any candidate, even if most of their workers and shareholders support that candidate.

Ordinary Americans cannot compete with the virHow can we possibly expect our democracy to function when the influence of corporate funds overwhelm political campaigns? Should a single corporation be allowed to drown out the political will of thousands of individual voters?

As corporations look to wield influence and power, they seek to have politicians beholden to them. The easiest way for them to do so is through campaign financing. This creates an automatic conflict of interest if the candidate gets elected, putting corporate interests well above those of the common people. This undermines every aspect of our democracy.

Not only does corporate funding buy the allegiance of candidates to special corporate interests, but it also influences voters through funding of expensive and widely distributed advertisements.
Corporate money can pay for highly effective marketing strategies to manipulate public opinion in the political arena as they have previously done in the sales arena.

[afreechild]

02:16 PM on 01/30/2012

How can we possibly expect our democracy to function when the influence of corporate funds overwhelm political campaigns? Should a single corporation be allowed to drown out the political will of thousands of individual voters?

As corporations look to wield influence and power, they seek to have politicians beholden to them. The easiest way for them to do so is through campaign financing. This creates an automatic conflict of interest if the candidate gets elected, putting corporate interests well above those of the common people. This undermines every aspect of our democracy.

Not only does corporate funding buy the allegiance of candidates to special corporate interests, but it also influences voters through funding of expensive and widely distributed advertisements.
Corporate money can pay for highly effective marketing strategies to manipulate public opinion in the political arena as they have previously done in the sales arena.

Expensive advertisements distort political discourse because they have no obligation to be factual or truthful. Moreover, the excessive funding is often used to buy airtime to repeat a message until it is perceived to be fact, essentially brainwashing people to chose a candidate the way that they might chose a dish detergent.

[kiksadi50]

01:21 PM on 01/30/2012

if McCain was really as outraged as he says he is, he would refuse to endorse any candidate who will not reveal their donations list including donors and amounts. Put your friends superPAC where your mouth is buddy.

[demotom]

12:58 PM on 01/30/2012

What's this? A Republican biting the hand that keeps them in power? Evidently the Republicans did not realize that the Citizens United decision to destroy democracy was a two edge sword that cut both ways. We now see that what is bad for the goose is also bad for the gander. Welcome to the real world, John McCain. When you have had enough of the trash set upon us by the current Supreme Court, John, perhaps you could get some of your Republican buddies in the Congress to join with the Democrats and construct a constitutional amendment that would outlaw corporate contributions to political campaigns at all levels, state and federal. Then they could vote it into being and stop this rape of the election process. The next time that the Republicans have the opportunity to appoint any Supreme Court justices, maybe they ought to be sure that those that they select place justice above politics. Obviously that was not done with the current crop of radically conservative Republican judges that now have us by the throat. It is not fun when the buzzards come home to roost, is it John.

[liry]

03:58 PM on 02/01/2012

Fanned and faved for that. Thanks.

[cddickey]

12:56 PM on 01/30/2012

$uperPac money (and PAC money for that matter), would buy alot of school supplies or school lunches.....jus' sayin'...

[Puffin16]

12:32 PM on 01/30/2012

I scare myself when I agree with McCain, but he is spot on with this one.

[reressler]

12:55 PM on 01/30/2012

Don't be afraid -- McCain is a holdover from the days when members of Congress didn't have to toe the party line. He is also old enough to remember when the American voter was sovereign (at least in theory). People who are under forty likely don't remember these things.

[KB55]

02:11 PM on 01/30/2012

Don't give him any credit for campaign finance reform. He put forth a bill and then destroyed it, what a hypocrit.

[DANIELISTICALL]

12:13 PM on 01/30/2012

EASY TO CREATE
And it turns out that starting a 501(c)(4) is even easier than starting a PAC. You just file your application for nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service and -- because approval has typically just been a formality -- you are allowed to declare yourself a 501(c)(4) even before you are approved.
But unlike section 527 of the tax code, which was explicitly created for political advocacy groups, section 501(c)(4) was intended for what are known as "social welfare" groups. IRS guidelines for (c)(4) status state that intervening in political campaigns, while not prohibited, cannot be the primary activity. Instead, such groups "must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community."
So how can organizations that are so clearly political in nature make that claim?

[oscartucker]

12:03 PM on 01/30/2012

NG was all for the CU ruling UNTIL it was used against him. JMc is correct, BUT it seems that the GOPTP did not think the whole thing through until the Super PACs started to destroy them and create such hostilities. MR acted so "innocent" at one of the "debates", but he's truly taken down his own party opposition using the CU ruling. NG would have done the same to MR if he'd had the $$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Andythelawyer]

11:55 AM on 01/30/2012

For a change, he's not wrong.