iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Melissa Mark-Viverito

GET UPDATES FROM Melissa Mark-Viverito
 

Citizens United: Bad for Small Business and Bad for Democracy

Posted: 02/ 3/2012 7:59 am

Freddy Castiblanco, owner of Terraza 7 Live Music in Elmhurst, NY and member of the steering committee of the Main Street Alliance, is the co-author of this opinion.

Two years ago last week, the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision, paving the way for unlimited corporate spending in elections. In 2012, the decision's affects are more apparent than ever; the Republican presidential nominee may very well be chosen by a Super PAC, rather than everyday citizens. But the full scope of the damage caused by this decision is only just beginning to be felt, especially at the local level. Among the victims of mega-corporate power will not only be everyday citizens and their elections, but also small businesses in our country.

New data from a national poll of small business owners shows that Citizens United was viewed negatively by an overwhelming 66 percent of the 500 survey participants. Their chief concern was one that most Americans share, including 88 percent of small business owners: with more money in politics, more special privileges are likely to be doled out to those who could pay-to-play. And note that since January 2010, almost $6 billion has been spent on lobbying activities, according to opensecret.org, and at a time when the Congress is debating whose subsidies to preserve, what industries to aid, and which businesses to regulate.

The Citizens United decision stacks the deck further in the favor of big business by allowing money to dictate what is important in elections, who candidates have to please to get elected, and what sort of policy is pursued after they win. Let me assure you, what is good for Terraza 7, a local NYC performance venue, is rarely what is good for Madison Square Garden or Yankee Stadium. But how can Terraza 7 make that point effectively if money is speech and they have less of it?

When the New York City Council passed the Progressive Caucus-sponsored resolution condemning corporate personhood and called for a constitutional amendment process to permanently halt undue corporate influence in elections, they were taking a stand for fairness. The residents of NYC poorest neighborhoods will not be making unlimited donations to Super PACs anytime soon, nor will many of NYCs small businesses. In fact the types of policy and candidates corporate dollars back will almost certainly run counter to what the residents of and employers in NYC poorest and most working class districts really need: good paying jobs, strong public schools and safe and healthy homes.

We need to restore transparency to the system so we know who's interests are running the campaigns, so we can make clear eyed decisions about the positions myself and other elected officials take. Small business owners also know the value of transparency. To quote one owner, "We build our businesses on the strength of our word." What's more, if there is any group of people who can speak to the importance of a society that provides individuals the opportunity to build their dreams with their own hands, it is small business owners. Restoring fairness to the system means protecting these entrepreneurs so that corporations and big money do not drown them out, so that our democracy functions like a democracy, where everyone has a say, regardless of your power, wealth, or social status. With Citizens United at two years old, we have much to do.

 

Follow Melissa Mark-Viverito on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@MMViverito

Freddy Castiblanco, owner of Terraza 7 Live Music in Elmhurst, NY and member of the steering committee of the Main Street Alliance, is the co-author of this opinion. Two years ago last week, the Sup...
Freddy Castiblanco, owner of Terraza 7 Live Music in Elmhurst, NY and member of the steering committee of the Main Street Alliance, is the co-author of this opinion. Two years ago last week, the Sup...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DingoDango
11:33 PM on 02/05/2012
Gosh...why does this remind me of Obama and Jeffrey Immelt? Or Solyndra?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jkanon
A pragmatic progressive
09:26 AM on 02/04/2012
Everyone who understand the dangers that Citizens United poses to our democracy should start working to get an amendment passed to undo it. Sen. Bernie Saunders is leading one such movment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jkbc8484
06:51 PM on 02/03/2012
In my opinion campaigns should be limited to individual contributions only. Citizens United is simply a way to possibly win an election. Look at what happened in Florida? I believe the ads on television there were something like 65 willard to 1 ad newt with most of the money coming from Super Pacs.

I just read that the Koch brothers have raised an unbelievable amount of money to buy ads against President Obama.

In short, Super Pacs need to be eliminated.
04:21 PM on 02/03/2012
The tacking on of courts in the federal system to regulate peoples' governing decisions as was the case after the American Revolution was counter-revolutionary and undemocratic. Its objective, largely successful, was an effort by a tiny minority of conservative men to lessen the power, and thus the freedom, of the people who had made the Revolution in the first place.

In the successive two hundred years, Americans have fuffered needlessly and the country's history has suffered frequent reversals from the decisions of earnest, well-meaning, legalistically narrow minds of politically appointed and for-life protected justices.

The decision in Citizens United is only the most recent of these travesties. Americans will not be safe from these politically appointed counter-revolutionaries until the Congress revisits the constitutionality of the federal courts with particular emphasis on the rules governing the appointment and performance of justices. Rules of procedure should prevent appointment of politically partisan judges and provide for dismissal of incompetent or unprofessional members who fail to follow rules of evidence, precedents, strict Constitutional principles, or when challenged, fail to conform to referenda of the people.

This is a broken part of the system. It is fundamental to its repair. Until the Supreme Court boondoggfle is fixed the system will continue to flounder in the morass of political and economic
interests and partisan wars. Only the people can change it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnknownSolider
02:13 PM on 02/03/2012
I wonder what sort of Congressional Gifts Little Ceasars pizza has been given. I see this pizza chain popping up all over NYC trying to displace the local mom and pop pizza shops, with their 5 dollar pies. It saddens me to see so many low income people eating this corporate garbage when they can get a decent pizza for a few dollars more.
10:39 AM on 02/03/2012
Shouldn't an end to corporate personhood mean an end to the corporate press exemption?

From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens.

From 1886 to 1973 flesh and blood citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.

From 1974 to present only the commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and the press. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads anyway? "Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it.

I suggest watching the following videos before pushing for more campaign laws:

http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/33-sampson

http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/15-camppolitics

http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/39-azcleanelectionsvideo