In the first big campaign finance case since the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion last year in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court will hear arguments on Monday in McComish v. Bennett. McComish is a critical test for the Roberts Court. Will it tolerate, or will it kill off, Arizona's public financing law, put in place to control corporate and special interest influence over the electoral process? Public financing is one of the last, best protections against corruption available in the wake of Citizens United.
In Citizens United, a bitterly-divided Supreme Court gutted key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, ruling by a 5-4 vote that corporations have a right to spend unlimited sums in candidate elections, effectively allowing corporations to drown out the voices of individual Americans. The majority in Citizens United sharply departed from our Constitution's text and history. Corporations are never mentioned in the Constitution, they cannot vote in elections, stand for election, or serve as elected officials, but the Court in Citizens United ruled they can overwhelm the political process using profits generated by the special privileges -- such as perpetual life and limited liability -- granted to corporations alone.
The McComish case could be the next shoe to drop, or, perhaps, a turning point by the Court back toward fair elections and the Constitution. The Court will consider the constitutionality of Arizona's Clean Elections Act, a thoughtful effort to deter both the appearance and the reality of campaign corruption by providing matching funds to participating candidates to ensure they can run a competitive race, even against a privately-financed candidate with huge reserves or a candidate with the support of corporate special interests. In a brief representing constitutional law scholars Bruce Ackerman of Yale, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard, Fordham's Zephyr Teachout and UCLA's Adam Winkler, my organization, Constitutional Accountability Center, argues that the Court should uphold Arizona's law -- not least because the Framers were obsessed with the possibility of our elected officials being corrupted by special interests. The Framers did all they could to make sure public servants in fact represent "We the People."
Among many things at stake in McComish, one of the most important is the impact it could have on efforts to prevent corruption in state judicial elections (pdf). The Grisham novel facts of the Caperton v. Massey case (coal executive spends $3 million to help elect state Supreme Court justice who then casts deciding vote throwing out $50 million verdict against coal company), coupled with the presence of representatives of the Chamber of Commerce at a recent Koch retreat to discuss influencing the outcome of state judicial elections, show just how brazenly political judicial elections have come in recent years. In response, three states have adopted public financing systems to reduce the public's impression of bias in their states' elected judiciaries: New Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. West Virginia, the home of the Caperton case, has a public financing system slated to go online in the 2012 election cycle. McComish could have a profound impact on the viability of these efforts to clean up the selection process for our state courts.
We should all care about having fair elections, free from corruption, at both the federal and state level. For that reason, we should all be watching the McComish case closely. Will the Court that permitted the injection of unlimited corporate expenditures into our election process now prevent one of the best ways to ensure candidates without corporate backing have a fighting chance? We'll know the answer soon.
Follow Doug Kendall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/myconstitution
We will need a natural or man made catastrophe of biblical dimensions to destroy and rebuild the institutions of this nation. As they stand now, they're driving us toward misery and fascism.
It was individual Americans who donated to Citizens United so they could make their film.
“Corporations are never mentioned in the Constitution, they cannot vote in elections, stand for election, or serve as elected officials...”
So what?
What groups ARE mentioned in the Constitution? None. What groups CAN do any of those things? None.
So you have no point.
So the point is there. It's just lost on you...
The solution, according to Lessig, is not to return to the world that we occupied before Citizens United was decided. Instead he wants to “deal with all of the other corruption that existed.” Lessig’s plan is twofold. First, instead of overturning Citizens United, Lessig endorses the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) that was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.). Although the title is a proverbial red flag to the bull that is Justice Antonin Scalia ’60, said Lessig, “the bill would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions.”
Lessig also believes a constitutional amendment would be helpful, but instead of presenting one platform, he calls for a form of amendment process that exists in Article V, http://foavc.org//) allowing a convention to be called to discuss the amendment. A convention would allow all proposals for amendments currently stirring around Washington to remedy Citizens United to be melded, creating a hybrid amendment worthy of ratification. Many people are afraid of such a convention, said Lessig. But thirty-eight states have to ratify it and twelve states could veto and stop the process. Moreover, “an amendment process shouldn’t stop us from a real opportunity for freedom,” said Lessig.
Until EVERYONE starts talking and blogging and marching for Campaign Reform we are just spinning our wheels discussing anything that might challenge the special interests.
Join the fight.
I recommend the last link, but they are all great.
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/volunteer/petition (FENA)
http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/petition
http://change-congress.org/
http://movetoamend.org
http://foavc.org”
As long as they make bribery legal it cannot be corruption, arguing would have no point.
They learned well from “1984”
Corporations are people; money is speech.
1984 - George Orwell
2004 article by Molly Morgan and Jan Edwards entitled "Abolish Corporate Personhood."
"Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person."
Snerd
So is the 'Co(R)po(R)ations United' ruling about:
* the secrecy of power
* the power of secrecy
* both
Snerd
I maintain that not only *can* they do so, they have done so and they make up the bulk of the elected officials in our national government.
I am sure that you would have pointed out the UNIONS spent over $100M in the last election cycle and that they overwhelming give to Democratic candidates.
I am sure a critical thinkings non-partisan personal such as your self had this as just a simple oversight
The purpose of your criticism and the actions against unions by Republican governors across the nation is obvious!
And as a small footnote, in doing so, 'unintentionally' cede the Republic, the rule of law and the possibility of Citizen Democracy ... to Dolla(R) Democ(R)acy ...!!!
Snerd
So there was nothing in the case about a business can give billions to anyone they wanted. The case was not about spending limits or caps. It was a free speech issues.