In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the federal government could not prohibit independent political speech by incorporated entities and unions.
The decision provoked a swift backlash among those who argue for greater regulation and restriction on the freedom to spend money in politics. They claimed that the “public interest” would be harmed by the Court’s ruling. But there is little evidence to support this claim, yet it is offered as self-evident by those making it without any attempt to substantiate it.
The House recently passed the DISCLOSE Act to attempt to subvert the Supreme Court’s ruling and to reimpose bans on political spending by corporations. The Senate is now considering the bill.
As one prominent reformer, Public Citizen President Robert Weisman, said, “Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls…The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election process… and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.”
The comments of Weisman and others all share a unifying theme: that the well-being of the public, i.e. the “public interest,” will be damaged because companies and advocacy groups are now allowed to spend general treasury funds to advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for office.
As CCP President Sean Parnell explains in an analysis of various indicators of quality of life, economic strength and other factors, there is absolutely no evidence for these claims. The analysis, “Citizens United, Citizens’ Lives: A comparison of states with and without prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures,” examines 13 metrics from state-specific data to determine whether any policy impact from independent expenditure regulation can be determined.
Prior to the Citizens United, only 22 states prohibited corporations from engaging in independent expenditures in state election contests, while two allowed limited corporate spending and the remaining 26 had no limitations on corporate spending at all. The experience of these 26 states indicates that whatever influence or voice corporations are able to gain in the political process through expenditures does not result in public policy choices that negatively impact the lives of citizens.
As the Senate considers the DISCLOSE Act, the burden of proof should be on its sponsors and supporters to explain why Congress should rewrite campaign finance laws in the heat of the midterm campaigns with no evidence of adverse policy results from political spending by companies, unions and advocacy groups.
