| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - Two-Faced | ||||
| ||||
This past week’s special senatorial election in Massachusetts has received a lot of national attention. Conservatives have heralded Scott Brown’s win as clear signs of the nation’s discontent with President Obama while liberals worry about what the repercussions will be not only for health care reform but also for climate change and the rest of their agenda. The added drama that the Kennedy seat was won by a Republican just 14 months after Obama carried the state by 26 points has helped this incident overshadow the far more important political news of the week. In a 5- 4 decision on Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court overturned over a century’s worth of precedent in allowing corporations and unions to spend from their own treasuries on political campaigns.
The reactions to this ruling have varied from cries of treason to the celebration of “a great day for the First Amendment.” This broad range of responses comes as no surprise given the long history of government restrictions on corporate participation in campaigns starting with the Tillman Act of 1907 and as recently as McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. The rulings will allow special interest groups to use their deep pockets to run ads for or against candidates who support their agendas. Proponents of the first amendment rights of institutions see it as a big victory and have dressed it up as a great win for Americans. At the same time, the dissenting opinion of the court warned that the decision “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.” Complicating the matter even more is the group of supporters who argue that the ruling is both good and bad for our democracy because the potential for corruption is greater but it decreases the power of big media corporations, which were exclusively allowed to participate in campaigns.
Of course, the court’s primary concern should be whether the law in question, the McCain-Feingold Act, violates the Constitution, not what political ramifications such a ruling may have. Hence, the court is within its authority to rule against restrictions of free speech based on how powerful a group is. What is troubling is that the Court was far from apolitical in its proceedings in this case. It went out of its way to hear the case, expanded the grounds on which a lower court’s decision was appeal, and rushed the trial so that its decisions could effect the upcoming 2010 elections.
Not everyone believes that the ruling will have such a dramatic an effect on our politics. Some experts suggest that the impact will be minimal citing studies that political ads have diminishing effects as they occupy more airtime or even negative since large corporate support may be met with harsh backlash in the era of grassroots fundraising ushered in by the 2008 Presidential elections. Others concede the dangers of opening the floodgates to more money in politics but argue that this could be a necessary evil that will bring about reform by challenging the high reelection rate for incumbents or providing the impetus for a better public campaign finance system.
Such a wait-and-see outlook is far from reassuring. And yet little can be now to reverse the decisions. Short-term measures that place restrictions on corporations with government contracts or require shareholder approval before corporations support campaigns will probably run into resistance. Court appointments are for life and constitutional amendments take time. For now, waiting and seeing may be all we can do. Hopefully, the experts will be right.
