When gov’t and business align, both become more powerful at the citizens’ expense
The full implications of the Citizens United ruling that corporations and unions are people, and thus have a free-speech right to spend as much of their enormous resources as they wish to influence elections, are only gradually coming into focus.
But here’s a good place to start:
Roger Nicholson, senior vice president and general counsel at International Coal Group, recently sent a letter around to other major coal companies proposing that they create a new campaign-finance entity that would allow them to spend millions of dollars defeating candidates they don’t like. Even better, thanks to the successful filibuster against the so-called DISCLOSE Act, their expenditures wouldn’t have to be publicly disclosed until they file their tax returns next year, long after the election is over.
The Lexington Herald Leader has obtained a copy of Nicholson’s letter.
“With the recent Supreme Court ruling, we are in a position to be able to take corporate positions that were not previously available in allowing our voices to be heard,” Nicholson wrote. “…. A number of coal industry representatives recently have been considering developing a 527 entity with the purpose of attempting to defeat anti-coal incumbents in select races, as well as elect pro-coal candidates running for certain open seats. We’re requesting your consideration as to whether your company would be willing to meet to discuss a significant commitment to such an effort.”
According to the letter, Nicholson’s company and three other major coal firms “have already had some theoretical discussions about such an effort and would like to proceed in developing an action plan.” Among the firms listed is Massey Energy, run by CEO Don Blankenship, who has a long history of buying politicians and state Supreme Court justices.
As the Herald-Leader also notes, Nicholson’s firm “owned the Sago mine in West Virginia where 12 miners died in 2006. Massey owned the Upper Big Branch mine, also in West Virginia, where 29 miners died in April.”
The letter proposes to focus the finance effort on three races “of interest”. One of them is the contest between incumbent Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia against his Republican challenger, Elliott “Spike” Maynard. For those who followed that story, Maynard is the former West Virginia Supreme Court justice who vacationed on the French Riviera with Blankenship, then came home and cast the deciding vote that overturned a $50 million verdict against Blankenship’s company.
Unfortunately, the power that Citizens United confers on both unions and corporations lies not just in their expanded ability to change the outcome of elections. It also gives those entities considerable if more subtle power to intimidate or seduce those already in office.
It’s a shame that this evolved so quickly into a partisan issue, because Citizens United poses a danger to conservatives as well as liberals. For example, it hands a much bigger stick to unions, including government-employee unions, to reward their friends and punish their enemies. It gives Wall Street an even bigger voice in demanding access to government bailouts and other favors. If you are concerned about immigration, it enhances the clout of Big Agriculture and other industries that see illegal immigrants as a cheap source of labor and profit. And it will make politicians more eager to appease corporations that come to them behind closed doors demanding congressional earmarks.
Overall, Citizens United tightens the nexus between government and business, allowing each to seek more favors from the other. Such rent-seeking behavior will inevitably undercut the operation of the free market, a prospect that no doubt frightens the few remaining true conservatives on the modern American scene.
Personally, I never liked the approach taken by President Obama and the Democrats in trying to address this challenge. The DISCLOSE Act was an effort to manage the issue, rather than solve it, and any effort to “manage” a problem like this becomes a power play in its own right.
A better approach would be a simple, clean, nine-word constitutional amendment that strikes at the heart of the Citizen United ruling: “A corporation or union is not a natural person.” It seems to me to be an irrefutable statement of fact, or at least ought to be.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
251 comments Add your comment
Curious Observer
July 29th, 2010
2:14 pm
I suspect that the so-called compact movement arises from frustration with instances in which a presidential candidate wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College. There have been three elections in which the winner received fewer popular votes than the losers—in 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes was elected; in 1888, when Benjamin Harrison was elected; and in 2000, when George W. Bush was elected.
I don’t expect the compact movement to go anywhere. Still, there’s no question that a lop-sided victory in the Electoral College often does not reflect the relative popular vote. Even Barack Obama’s easy victory in the Electoral College distorted the popular vote win.
Bottom line: the Founding Fathers made a deal with the small states. I can’t imagine that enough states would band together to provide 270 electoral votes. It would be an interesting Supreme Court case if they did.
barking frog
July 29th, 2010
2:16 pm
AmVet: I’m sorry we got that ticket in 2000, and 2008.
Saul Good
July 29th, 2010
2:17 pm
Barking…just saw that as I was about to fold down the “hood”… funny!
Remember: Oil $140 a barrel under Bush when BP and EXXON made those record profits quarter after quarter while receiving massive tax breaks back in 2008?
Did those “profits” trickle down” yet????
See ya’s all lata…
roldawg70
July 29th, 2010
2:17 pm
i’m with am vet and some others
both parties, to one degree or another, or beholden to big business
oh if gov’t takes over a business that socialism
and i know few i mind if it happened
SPQR(laissez Faire)
July 29th, 2010
2:17 pm
The only sticker on my suv is calvin with a lawn dart in his head saying “Legalize JARTs”
I support the troops the old fashioned way..support untying their hands, pretty full immunity from any prosecution for anything done in a war theater to the enemy even if there is collateral damage..not like they planned it that way, things happen.., and support for gutting social welfare systems and doubling soldier pay with the savings.
AmVet
July 29th, 2010
2:20 pm
frog at 2:16, what does that even mean? Seriously.
Trace500
July 29th, 2010
2:20 pm
The Disclose Act violates the equal protection clause and will be chanllenged on that basis.
Bosch
July 29th, 2010
2:21 pm
“the way obama took control of GM and even more brazenly, AIG, was NO DIFFERENT than the way Hitler commandeered Krupp, Deutschebank and AG Farben”
I don’t know how Hitler did all that, and don’t really care — but Obama did not take control of GM, they asked for a loan — as did AIG
That’s why wingnuts don’t need to run things — they are so ungodly misinformed and stupid.
jconservative
July 29th, 2010
2:21 pm
Jay I tend to agree with you on this issue. But the coal companies creating a “person” to buy congress is not going to create the notoriety needed to get your amendment passed.
It will take a foreign owned corporation incorporated in the USA doing the same thing to get the folks all riled up.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation is a US incorporated corporation owned by Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan government. Those who admire Chavez and his politics may support the Court’s Citizens United decision. But I will bet that the vast majority of US citizens detest the man. And will end up detesting the Citizens United decision. Yet Citgo is a US citizen per the Supreme Court. The only thing they cannot do is cast a ballot. Yet.
Jay do your readers want Hugo Chavez spending $50 million on the next Georgia Senate race? Spending $50 million on the next US presidential race?
Karen Handel has made a name for herself fighting to keep aliens from voting. But she has not said a word about aliens spending $50 million to support a candidate. Bet she would holler if Hugo Chavez decided to spend that kind of money to support the Democratic candidate for governor.
Any way you cut it the Court blew this decision.
SPQR(laissez Faire)
July 29th, 2010
2:23 pm
Telling how readily you admit Hugo Chavez would back the democrat…
JohnnyReb
July 29th, 2010
2:25 pm
Doggone, you are correct my mistake. From Wiki – The SCOTUS ruled against the recount and their decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’s previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida’s electoral votes to stand. Florida’s 25 electoral votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore, who ended up with 266 electoral votes (with one D.C. elector abstaining). A majority (270) of the electoral votes is needed to win the Presidency or Vice Presidency in the Electoral College.
My point still stands. If the current pack underway to bypass the electroal college had been successful and was in place in 2000, Gore would have gotten more electoral college votes and we would all be wearing green jumpsuits.
Bosch
July 29th, 2010
2:27 pm
Reb,
Yeah, but I’d much be wearing a green jumpsuit instead of thousands of soldiers killed for nothing and our economy tanking.
Billings Up
July 29th, 2010
2:32 pm
Mr. YES WE CAN be popular again has demoted the once proud dem party to the dumbest bunch of f*cks ever party.
stands for decibels
July 29th, 2010
2:35 pm
If the current pack underway to bypass the electroal college had been successful and was in place in 2000, Gore would have gotten more electoral college votes and we would all be wearing green jumpsuits.
I’m going to say this only one more time–this could ONLY happen if a sufficient number of red states participated in the pact.
Seriously, are you not getting this?
Of all the things to be frightened of, the notion that Al Gore is going to get all the states to join the pact, and then fire up the WABAC machine and re-play 2000… let’s just say that if he could do that, he’d probably decide instead to spend a few hundred bucks to instruct elderly Jewish voters how not to accidentally punch the hole for Pat Buchanan.
barking frog
July 29th, 2010
2:38 pm
AmVet; 2:20; It means that without oil company backing you will
not be POTUS.
Doggone/GA
July 29th, 2010
2:38 pm
“What breed is that ?”
Whippets
“Unfortunately, I have a male boxer with a serious heart condition not even five years old yet. He probably won’t be with us much longer. If you are a “dog person” you understand”
Yes, I do understand indeed. I just lost a 10 year old Whippet to cancer. WAY, WAY too young.
Doggone/GA
July 29th, 2010
2:39 pm
“I don’t expect the compact movement to go anywhere. Still, there’s no question that a lop-sided victory in the Electoral College often does not reflect the relative popular vote”
But that is not, strictly speaking, the fault of the Electoral College. It is the fault of how the state allocate their Electoral Votes. The “winner takes all” system distorts it.
AmVet
July 29th, 2010
2:40 pm
Though I’ve not agreed with him very often, he was spot on this time:
President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
Five judicial activists on the Supreme Court, and five of the worst justices in American jurisprudence – Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas – overruled two major precedents and swept aside a century-old understanding of free speech.
They sold the American CITIZEN down the corporate polluted river. They played along to get along. Nothing more.
Consequences be damned for the plutocracy and oligarchy enablers.
SOVEREIGNTY FOR SALE!
roldawg70, thank you.
Many, many, many Americans are starting to wake up to the systematic destruction of our “noble experiment”. Just as Lincoln and many other very wise men long ago foretold.
82% of Americans agree that business has too much power over too many aspects of our lives. And that was in 2000. Certainly that percentage has gone up.
But the amazing aspect of all of this is how in the world can 18% of us be so damn dumb?
Observer
July 29th, 2010
2:40 pm
Trace500
July 29th, 2010
2:20 pm
Finally, we are making some progress.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
Portion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits discrimination by state government institutions. The clause grants all people “equal protection of the laws,” which means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another.
So you believe the Disclosure Act violates this amendment? You have my interest. Can you please elaborate?
Doggone/GA
July 29th, 2010
2:42 pm
“he’d probably decide instead to spend a few hundred bucks to instruct elderly Jewish voters how not to accidentally punch the hole for Pat Buchanan.”
sfd – have you ever actually LOOKED at that ballot? Apart from being illegal, according to Florida law on ballots…it WAS confusing.
AmVet
July 29th, 2010
2:47 pm
“AmVet; 2:20; It means that without oil company backing you will not be POTUS.”
Oh. OK.
So am I to infer that you advocate for theat heinous ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? And against public financing of elections and better donor disclosure rules?
@@
July 29th, 2010
2:49 pm
I don’t normally check out ml’s cartoons, but this one?
Bad call. Why use Chelsea and her wedding to bring up Bill’s past?
Cheap shot, ml.
AmVet
July 29th, 2010
2:50 pm
Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:
. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
Curious Observer
July 29th, 2010
2:50 pm
sfd – have you ever actually LOOKED at that ballot? Apart from being illegal, according to Florida law on ballots…it WAS confusing.
And like the asp that stung Cleopatra and disappeared from history, so the lady who designed that ballot pleaded stress and resigned, never to be heard from again. Yet, she probably had more to do with the course of modern U.S. history than any elected or appointed official.
Doggone/GA
July 29th, 2010
2:52 pm
“Cheap shot, ml”
I agree
Doggone/GA
July 29th, 2010
2:58 pm
“the lady who designed that ballot pleaded stress and resigned”
Yep, but you know, just as with the “Congress passes, but the Pres signs the bill” thing – it wasn’t truly SHE who was at fault. It was the fault of whoever approved it.
It kind of reminds me of a story from back in the days when seat belts were first introduced. Some ad agency was tasked with creating “pro-seatbelt ads” and they created one that made it all the way to the (as I heard it) President of the sponsoring company before it was killed. The slogan? “If you love your kid, belt ‘em”
AmVet
July 29th, 2010
2:58 pm
Thanks to decades of rulings by Justices who molded the law to favor elite interests, corporations today are granted privileges that empower them to deny citizens the right to full self-governance. For example, the Supreme Court has:
* prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even though scheduling such visits may permit a company to hide threats to public health and safety. (Marshall v Barlow’s, 1978)
* struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins (International Dairy v. Amnestoy, [pdf] 1996), thus creating “negative free speech rights” for corporations and preventing us from knowing what’s in our food.
* prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from corporate chains encroachment from enacting progressive taxes on chain stores. (Liggett v. Lee, 1933)
* struck down state laws restricting corporate spending on ballot initiatives and referenda, enabling corporations to block citizen action through what, theoretically, is the purest form of democracy. (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti).
Kamchak
July 29th, 2010
2:58 pm
It will take a foreign owned corporation incorporated in the USA doing the same thing to get the folks all riled up.
Not if you have a high profile lobbying firm to spin it for you.
stands for decibels
July 29th, 2010
2:59 pm
Yes, DGA, I’ve seen the ballot, and if I left anyone with the impression that I was making fun of people who made an honest mistake, that wasn’t my intent.
“Cheap shot, ml”
I agree
Well, yeah, but if you’re going to take cheap shots off the table, I don’t know how a political cartoonist is going survive for long.
barking frog
July 29th, 2010
3:00 pm
AmVet;2:47;I don’t like public financing as it exists that is in
the way POTUS snookered Mccain in 2008. OK with campaign
disclosure without revealing donors.Haven’t read CUv.FEC.
Doggone/GA
July 29th, 2010
3:02 pm
“Well, yeah, but if you’re going to take cheap shots off the table, I don’t know how a political cartoonist is going survive for long.”
Cheap shots are fine, as long as they have some truth in them and are at least somewhat funny. This one was just nasty and nothing else.
Sick of Repubs
July 29th, 2010
3:07 pm
Iowa GOP Embraces Plan to Scrip Obama’s Citizenship for Accepting Nobel Prize
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/iowa-gop-embraces-plan-to_n_663621.html
stands for decibels
July 29th, 2010
3:10 pm
Ok, DGA and @@, I surrender. You’re right.
The toon isn’t funny. Chelsea isn’t a political figure (save for some campaigning for her mom in 2008), she’s barely a public figure, really, and she has done nothing whatsoever to deserve this.
Normal
July 29th, 2010
3:10 pm
I thought it was funny.
JohnnyReb
July 29th, 2010
3:11 pm
Bosch, my thoughts have included you. Grief is tough but also a blessing. There is grief only when there was love.
stands for decibels
July 29th, 2010
3:11 pm
Hair-dyed SQUIRRELS upstairs.
WhoAreWeKidding
July 29th, 2010
3:18 pm
Businesses had their hands in the honeypot we call guvment well before this decision and they will for a long time after regardless of any attempts to change that. Water always rolls down hill.
Trace500
July 29th, 2010
3:19 pm
The ambiguous nature of this legislation’s language attempts to intimidate businesses and non-profits into not running any ads this November, for fear that they might somehow be violating federal election law by doing nothing more than talking about the issues. This bill blurs the distinction between express advocacy for a specific candidate and mere issue advocacy. Expressing support for an issue is not the same thing as expressly endorsing a candidate. This legislation does not make a distinction between the two, and, as a result, organizations running ads this November could face expensive lawsuits after the fact for allegedly violating some unwritten enforcement provision.
One of the main arguments made for this legislation during House debate was the claim that this bill would decrease the amount of money spent on elections. That is an outright falsehood. Nothing in this act would decrease the amount of money it costs to run for public office; rather, by restricting third-party fundraising and advertising it actually increases the amount a candidate would need to raise, thus again favoring incumbents who have a natural fundraising edge over challengers.
Senators Schumer, Feingold, and Leahy claim on their site: “When you buy toothpaste now, the money you spend can be used directly for television ads attacking people that you believe in without you even knowing.” The senators provide no evidence to back up these claims; it appears they are quite paranoid about Colgate and Crest having a political axe to grind against them.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1034
El Jefe
July 29th, 2010
3:19 pm
Corporations pay taxes and can be sued in a court of law. Sounds like they already are “people”
But, I think all it would take is for the SCOTUS to rule against the person-hood of a corporation.
But, the dims would loose all that tax revenue and the people might get to pay a few pennies less for an item or two.
AmVet
July 29th, 2010
3:21 pm
frog, do you agree that our system for financing presidential and congressional campaigns is fundamentally corrupt and pernicious?
And whether you do or not, I contend that this current Rep/Dem – Rep/Dem monoploy stinks, that it’s for sale and that it’s corrupt.
Apparently the vast percentage of Americans agree with me.
Time for action. Time to reclaim our democracy from the accelerating grip of dirty-money politics and concentrated corporate owned media.
AmVet
July 29th, 2010
3:24 pm
“Corporations pay taxes…”
Some do, some don’t.
And given the chance, the plutocracy enablers in the neo-con movement would see to it that none do.
AmVet
July 29th, 2010
3:24 pm
Just ask Eric Johnson, who campaigned on reducing taxes for Georgia corporations to ZERO.
Dave
July 29th, 2010
3:41 pm
Millions of people out of work but Obama still supports the Unions. He hates the ideal of any American who is willing to work hard to reach the American dream, hates the very thought of free enterprise.
Want to vote for a Democrat? Get in your car and see the factories that are close, look at the unemployment lines. See your friends loss lose their home or know of people who have been out of work for over a year. In Obama’s mind his agenda is working. is it?
@@
July 29th, 2010
3:42 pm
AmVet:
It looks like The Disclose Act might knock out any opportunity for your third-party candidates. Ron Paul supporters are vehemently opposed to HR 5175.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDaArRXI_AU
Scout
July 29th, 2010
3:59 pm
Doggone:
Wow! I had no idea they lived that long.
barking frog
July 29th, 2010
4:01 pm
AmVet;3:21;the system consists of candidates financing themselves
along with soliciting donations which has no limits or accepting
government financing and limiting the amount of money they can
spend. this is neither fundamentally corrupt nor pernicious. The
2 party system basically gives us middle of the road politics
which is not a bad thing in itself. We should be able to see
false campaign promises and vote accordingly but its
usually the pretty boy on tv that wins.
BADA BING
July 29th, 2010
7:24 pm
In response to an earlier blog about Republicans……….BADA BING is not a REP, I am a Realist, I vote for a qualified candidate, not a party line.
md
July 29th, 2010
7:54 pm
I see Jay is still on his soap box downstairs about corporations spending money to influence elections, yet nary a word about Cox Enterprises being allowed to do it……………
SCOTUSblog » Friday round-up
July 30th, 2010
9:25 am
[...] in campaign financing” by “confer[ring] closely with willing moderate Republicans.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Jay Bookman instead proposes a terse constitutional amendment: “A corporation or union is [...]
Friday round-up Internet Related Technologies Friday round-up
July 30th, 2010
11:25 am
[...] in campaign financing” by “confer[ring] closely with willing moderate Republicans.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Jay Bookman instead proposes a terse constitutional amendment: “A corporation or union is [...]
Friday round-up | theConstitutional.org
July 31st, 2010
7:25 am
[...] in campaign financing” by “confer[ring] closely with willing moderate Republicans.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Jay Bookman instead proposes a terse constitutional amendment: “A corporation or union is [...]