Once upon a time, the medium was the message - now, the Supreme Court Citizens United decision to increase corporate dollars in campaigns means that in politics, the money is the message.
In this era of anti-Big fill in the blank (Government, Oil, Banks, etc), Big Money will be spent to convince angry voters that candidates are really, truly for the little guy and gal. Now that doesn't have to mean that the Big Money candidate wins - especially if we use new media efforts to define just how the money is the message. The philosophy behind the Supreme Court ruling that corporate contributions equal political speech appears to be that special interest money is OK so long as it's accompanied by transparency. But the transparency part of the Citizens United equation will only work if we have netizens united to share information, track the money, connect the dots between special interests and policy, and enhance new media efforts in campaigns. Over the next 10 months leading to the 2010 elections, I'd expect an onslaught of spending and of online pushback as both sides of a fight battle furiously to define or be defined.
First, Citizens United will yield a call to share the information. We expect a simple disclaimer: "I'm the CEO, and I approve this message." CEOs of any entity - publicly traded company, LLC, or labor union - should identify themselves in the communication so we know who's pitching the candidate. Now in most cases a company has worked hard to be nonpartisan and above the political fray. Most CEOs would look at the corporate donors for and against social causes who have publicly risked boycotts and decide not to tarnish their all-American image. (Look how fast Tiger Woods' sponsors jumped ship - betting on a politician might be seen as an equally risky investment. Would you like to be holding John Edwards or John Ensign stock right now?) Most publicly traded companies hesitate to have their shareholders to vote on political expenditures (the way labor unions do) or force the boss to say "My name is CEO Smith and I approved this message." Also, if there are suddenly a proliferation of LLCs (like the IRS sec. 527 independent expenditure committees that blossomed last decade), having the same CEO approve multiple communications might signify that someone is over-engaged.
Second, you'll see people aggressively track the money. If we're talking about publicly traded companies, shareholders should add political contributions to the list of corporate social responsibility indicators and demand shareholder votes on expenditures. (Labor unions already have opt-out provisions for political activity with member dues; shareholders would have to force the issue). Immediate disclosure on FEC and corporate websites should bring the information into the light of day within 24 hours of the communication. If we're talking LLCs, multiple donors at the same address or filed by the same attorney or formed by similar friends will also tell the tale. The next wave in political organizing will likely be a house meeting where the host encourages people to open LLCs as vehicles to push corporate communications. Heaven help us!
Third, more will attempt to connect the dots. Let's be honest: the Court's ruling means that a lobbyist may go to a Senator, demand a vote, and threaten multimillion dollar opposition if the Senator refuses. Special interests will tighten their grip on Washington. Connecting the dots based on online reporting and filings about who is lobbying, who is spending, who is promising funds pro and con brings this into the light of day. New media will be vital in uncovering these truths and getting the word out. It won't stop the attacks but it will condition supporters to know that the hits are coming.
Fourth, Citizens United means enhanced new media in campaigns. If you are involved with a campaign on the other side of the corporate efforts, new media can help stop corporate communications from drowning out the voices of everyday Americans. Low budget high intensity new media strategies will be key. Posting information about who is attacking you and why may cause voters and reporters to look at the money funding the message. Hypocrisy has a way of piercing through the clutter - many a candidate "for the people" will be asked to turn away from Big Money.
While we do not yet foresee all the consequences of Citizens United we do know that every campaign will also be a battle to define exactly how the money is the message.
UPDATE: Jan 23: Now that President Obama has called out the Supreme Big Money Stampede and tasked Congress with a fix http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/obama-weekly-address-vide_n_434082.html we will have our first test. Who will propose measures to remove corporate personhood, the most obvious fix? Not so many. Who will propose the reforms I mentioned - requiring CEO disclaimers, shareholder decisions, and prompt disclosures? Let's watch the Stampede begin with lobbying against the legislative fix. In the legislating, lobbying as well as in the campaigns themselves, the Money will be the Message.
Follow Christine Pelosi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sfpelosi
Support Alan Grayson's legislative proposals to make it difficult and expensive for corporations to contribute to political campaigns.
Support the movement for a Constitutional amendment defining clearly that corporations are not people with free speech rights.
Boycott companies who already contribute large amounts of money to political campaigns.
Get a million people to Washington and march every day.
Impeach those five judges.
And no matter what, do not vote Republican.
Saying that you can track the money and track the visits misses the point. The fact that they HAVE the atomic bomb is all that is important. And that is not exaggerating the scope of the problem. The entire Obama/McCain campaign, both sides, cost 1.7 billion dollars. Exxon makes 10 billion dollars in net profit every quarter.
The guy with the nuclear missile doesn't have to shout 'Hey everybody I have a nuclear missile'. He doesn't have to walk into a Senator's office and say 'do this or I'll shoot my nuclear missile at you'. All he has to do is exist and every time the Senator does anything he will be thinking 'I wonder what they guy with the nuclear missile will think about this'. The Citizens United case didn't just change politics in the next election, it changed it immediately. So saying that you can track lobbyist visits or try to unravel the shell games corporations play with money.
Saying shareholders will revolt if they learn that the company has been spending money to influence elections is laughable. Fundamentally shareholders (mostly institutional investors) are interested in their investment paying off. Spending to get a favorable governement is smart business.
Our government routinely deplored or condemned other countries' judicial systems because justice could be purchased. We stood for the rule of law, transparency, and accountability--for other governments and judicial systems.
Now, foreign and domestic corporations, businesses, or partnerships will be able to purchase justice. The astroturfing industry has just expanded.
Besides, by the time the disclosures are made and analyzed, the damage has been done. And, who will have the money to broadcast to the same targeted audience who actually financed the smear or the disinformation campaign? Besides, a CEO does not have to approve if they use a third party trade association. That's the outcome of the SCOTUS decision.
Nothing in the transparency rules will take away the fear factor that corporations will now be able to use: support this legislative provision or tax break or regulation or we'll use our financial clout against you in the election. The dividing line between bribery and free speech is going to be blurred to the point of erasure.
We need more regulations disclosing campaign contributions tied to earmarks and tax benefits for corporations and businesses, from large to small.
And, we need a constitutional amendment that corporations are not persons. Corporations already have free speech--they advertise, they issue policy advertisements, they lobby, and their individual members through PACs provide campaign donations.
If politicians at local, state and federal levels weren't bought already, the SCOTUS decision opens the door to buying them wholesale at every level of government across the country.
want to place a wager on that game ???
Do you really think that the people who voted for Brown in the Mass. special election run around saying they were duped and didn't know what they were doing?
Maybe people on this site should think of a new reason why millions upon millions of people constantly vote for the "wrong" candidates other than those people are misinformed.
Make candidates sign binding legal pledges to outlaw all political contributions.
Yes to ensuring transparency. But there is nothing to "fix".
The ruling provide a new set of tools that can restore intellectual honesty to American political discourse and enable the public to elevate a cadre of left-liberal pols who (unlike mainstream Dems) have the fortitude and talent to bring down the right.
Indeed,Citizens United frees everyone (of all political persuasions) to pool their funds in specially chartered non-profit corporations for electioneering purposes. Not only most small donors but many well-heeled types (class traitors of FDR's ilk) "get" that our society has veered dangerously off course towards perilously excessive class stratification domestically and military adventurism abroad.
I predict many of us can and will step up and very amply fund newly minted left-liberal electioneering non-profits to effectively spread the messages of third parties and their maverick candidates or populist Democratic insurgent challengers to corporate friendly Democratic incumbents.
Once such candidates or their supporters have the ability to spend the threshold sum (not small) required to run a dignified and effective campaign, the ability of one side or the other to spend money is the political equivalent of bombs that make the rubble bounce.
The Supreme Court has just administered an angioplasty to the American body politic's hardened arteries. Progressives now need to heed Joe Hill's advice and not mourn but rather to organize "one, two, many" electioneering non-profit corporations and take back America.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
If Widget International decides that the CEO's sister is to be the next US Senator, they can spend billions on attack adds, rallies, disinformation campaigns......While the average campaign without corporate sponsorship could not hope to match the funding.
In perspective, Obama raised $750 million for his campaign while Goldman Sachs took in almost $20 BILLION in profits in 09, they could conceivable fund a candidate solely in their best interests for president.
Money is not speech, just as corporations are not citizens, and the 5 activist judges on the SCOTUS just created an Oligarchy.
Make use of this ruling just as Eric jacobson suggests.
Votes trump dollars.
;)
Do you really think people are going to track all this stuff to see who gave what to whom and what he/she said? Wlcome to the United Corporations of America. Oh, forgot to mention how many corporations are owned by foreign investors. Let me change that to "Welcome to the United Corporations of the World".
That being said the way to control this issue is by constitutional amendment. Far to often precedent is held up as holly but only when those holding it up are in favor of no change. When they want change those that oppose change are somehow stupid, hatefull, or ignorant? This is always in unintelligent arguement. After all there is huge precedent for marriage being only between one man and one woman or even for it being between one man and several women if you are Morman. Precedents IMO are highly over rated.
No question there are injustices in the world and everywhere you go but corporations and unions will have to have support for their spending money from shareholders and members or they can't sustain it. Lawyers will have a field day no doubt but when you consider the amount of unfettered financing the mass media have been allowed to spend for decades.
Look at the Insurance company funded "Demonstrations" this past summer. PR firms and lobbyist convinced a group of people that legislation intended to help them was a bad thing.
Remember "Keep the government out of my Medicare"?
But with the Republicans supporting this fully in the best interests of the few rather than the many, an amendment might be iffy, but your right it is the only way.
As long as Scalia sits on the bench, there will be no marriage equality, nor gay rights issues heard...He's a homophobe. In his dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case he said "Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
Once again putting his fear and prejudice against gays before the letter of the law and in direct violation of the 14th amendment...Some Constitutional Originalism....Welcome to America 1783.....
Not only does the media continue to fail in its duty to seek the truth but somehow the "netizens" will pick up the slack? As you mentioned the right fix will probably be overlooked. Why? Because that's the one thing that would actually bring change.
1. It will state in no uncertain terms that Money does not and cannot equal free speech, and that campaigns should be managed using a modest combination of public funds and contributions from actual human beings - US citizens. "Invisible interests" will no longer be able to purchase elections.
2. It will clarify the nature of the Rights of Man in relation to the rights of artificial entities such as Corporations.
3. It will state that Influence Peddling either in the electoral process or during the day to day processes of governance is illegal in any form and will not be tolerated. This will necessarily require a ban on all "Professional" Lobbying activity.
If you have to pay to say something, it is not Free…
http://political-perspectives.blogspot.com/2010/01/constitutional-course-correction.html