U.S. Supreme Court strikes down limits on corporate spending in elections. Opens floodgates to wave of new cash in campaigns.

On January 21^st the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to
4 to lift a decades-old ban on political spending by corporations.  This decision, Citizens United vs. the
Federal Election Commission, will radically alter campaign spending as we know
it.

Previously, corporations and labor unions were banned from
spending money out of their general treasury 30 days before a primary and
60 days before a general election.  
They are still prohibited from giving directly to candidates running for
office – and must continue to donate directly through their Political Action
Commission (PAC).

But with this ruling, corporations can now spend an
unlimited amount of money on their own independent expenditures for or against
candidates running for office – right up through election day.  And since Kentucky is one of 24 states that have specific laws barring corporations from spending money on electioneering, this ruling will make our own state laws virtually null and void.

So, what does this mean for elections?  There is already a lot of money
sloshing around in politics even before this ruling, you might say? 

Well, let’s play this out with an
example. 

Consider Exxon-Mobil. In 2008, its
PAC raised about $1 million from its employees and offices. Its profits that
year – which it was legally barred from pouring into politics – were $45
billion. It was illegal for Exxon to spend that money on elections. Now with
this decision, it will be legal.

The Citizens United ruling rolls back more than a 100 years of
campaign finance law.  The ban on
direct corporate spending in elections goes back to the 1907 Tillman Act, which
prohibited corporate contributions in federal campaigns (it was assumed to
cover independent expenditures, too). In 1947, the Taft-Hartley law made
explicit that corporations and unions could not directly spend their treasury
funds on electioneering. Congress, every time it has passed a law to deal
with this, only has strengthened this prohibition.

Corporations will still have to disclose any money they spend on ads they run directly.  However, disclosure laws might not be triggered if they funnel their contributions through a third-party group – which could add a huge cloud of secrecy because the public may never be able to find out who and how much is being spent by some of these corporations.

However, there is a silver lining in all this.  With this huge rollback of crucial limits on corporations
undue influence on elections this may just be the push that many lawmakers and the public need to enact real campaign finance reform. 

KFTC has long supported campaign spending limits and public financing
of elections
to reduce the amount spent on elections
and the power of big money
contributors.

What do you think about the Citizens United ruling?  About letting corporations have as much
“political speech” as they can afford to spend? 

To learn more: 

• Move To Amend,
  
• Public Campaign
• Common Cause