More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michael B. Keegan

Michael B. Keegan

Posted: February 19, 2010 01:35 PM

Poll: Liberals and Conservatives Strongly Disagree with "Citizens United" - Americans Want Limits on Corporate Cash in Elections

What's Your Reaction:

The Supreme Court decided in late January that giant corporations should be treated just like individual Americans when it comes to spending money in elections. Their ruling in the Citizens United case - which overturned decades of campaign finance legislation and previous court rulings - means that a company like ExxonMobil can spend an unlimited amount on attack ads, direct mail, and robocalls to support politicians who serve its interests and defeat those who stand in its way. The Court had its say, but now the American people are speaking.

People For the American Way has just released the results of a new national poll on Citizens United and the many ways in which Congress - and the American people - can undo the damage, culminating with an amendment to the Constitution.

Above all else, the poll shows that the Supreme Court is far out of step with popular opinion. Americans of all political stripes - including a majority of Republicans and conservatives - believe that corporations have too much influence in elections and should be limited by Congress in how much they can spend to support or oppose candidates. This isn't just a liberal or Democratic position - it's the American position, shared by majorities across the spectrum. Republican leaders who have rejoiced at the prospect of more corporate money in elections should take heed.

Specifically, our poll found that:

  • 78% believe that corporations should be limited in how much they can spend to influence elections, and 70% believe they already have too much influence over elections

  • 73% believe Congress should be able to impose such limits, and 61% believe Congress has done too little in the past to limit corporate influence over elections

Support was equally high for reforms that would blunt, or entirely undo, the Citizens United ruling. For instance, we found that:

  • 82% support limits on electioneering by government contractors, and 87% support limits on bailout recipients

  • 85% support a complete ban on electioneering by foreign corporations

  • 75% believe that a publicly traded company should get shareholder approval before spending money in an election

Democrats in Congress should act on the overwhelming public sentiment against Citizens United and pass meaningful reforms in time for the fall election. But it's going to take more than a legislative patch to fully mend the damage done by Citizens United. In fact, since the court struck down limits on corporate spending in elections on constitutional grounds, Congress is very limited in what it can do without running afoul of the court. Ultimately a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling will be required. That's why we're encouraged that:

  • Of the over 60% of Americans who have an opinion on a constitutional amendment to fix Citizens United, supports runs greater than 2 to 1

  • 69% think that the President, in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy, should nominate a Justice who supports limits on corporate spending in elections

People For the American Way has launched a campaign to amend the constitution and is working to ensure that future Supreme Court Justices do not put corporate interests about those of the American people. We hope you'll join us.

You can find the full results of our poll, which was conducted by SurveyUSA, here.

 

Follow Michael B. Keegan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peoplefor

 
 
  • Comments
  • 5
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:37 PM on 02/21/2010
Corporations spend money at the whim of senior management. Spending money on corporate 'speech' is not democratic in that most of the stakeholders in any company are not consulted as per their wishes. It is wrong to believe that the board represents the stockholders and employees especially in political matters. Senior management will spend money politically to improve their ability to make more money ostensibly for the company but are under no obligation contractually to consider any other quality or virtue than the bottom line. The best way to try to re-introduce some 'fairness' back into the process is to require that all political speech (and possibly lobbying) be put to at least a shareholder vote. At least then there would be some evidence that the 'speech' represented the will of all involved, not just senior management. Further, individuals commit political speech with after tax dollars, so should it be for corporations. These are much better and more straightforward approaches to fixing the SCOTUS ruling and still leaving the first amendment intact. ymmv
02:31 PM on 02/19/2010
Amendment? I don't think that that is going nearly far enough.

The past decade has shown up, in stark relief, a number of flaws in our constitution.

The Founders never expected the Constitution to last 200 years, and they never anticipated the current, disproportionate influence of corporations, nor the extent that Presidential powers have been abused.

We don't need an amendment .... we need a new Constitutional convention.
photo
peterg76
Freelance medical transcriptionist
02:17 PM on 02/19/2010
While I can agree with the corporation-bashing, has anyone considered that for a private individual to spend as many billions as they like on political endorsements isn't a good thing either?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:13 PM on 02/19/2010
Kind of. But those are the difficult free speech implications that the Constitution is there to protect.

If I want to spend all my own money telling printing up signs telling people to support (or oppose) a candidate, I think that's my right. I might feel really strongly about it! If ExxonMobil, on the other hand, wants to spend a billion dollars from its corporate treasury, I think that's different.

I'm a person. The CEO of Exxon is a person. We disagree, but we have a right to free speech. But the corporation itself is a profit seeking center, not a person. It can't vote. It can't run for office. And it doesn't deserve the right to spend unlimited money to influence an election.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:14 PM on 02/19/2010
Also, there are only a few people who can actually spend even a million dollars on an election. There are hundreds of organizations who can spend exponentially more. It's a totally different scale.