Editorial: Keep ban on contributions
The U.S. Supreme Court today will hear a case with enormous implications on political campaigns: whether to overturn the ban on corporate money in federal elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court today will hear a case with enormous implications on political campaigns: whether to overturn the ban on corporate money in federal elections.
A majority of justices appears to be seriously considering lifting the century-old ban. That would be a huge mistake. It would also be an act of judicial activism, reversing settled law and previous Supreme Court rulings.
The case involves a documentary about Hillary Clinton produced by the conservative group Citizens United and released during last year's presidential primary. The group wanted its movie to be available on cable TV on demand.
Citizens United is a nonprofit organized as a corporation. It also receives corporate donations. Those two factors invoked the law that bars corporations from broadcasting advertisements that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.
Congress banned corporate donations in federal elections in 1907. Prior to that, corporate wealth so dominated elections that lawmakers were known derisively not as the senator from Pennsylvania or New Jersey, but as "the senator from U.S. Steel."
Allowing corporations to flood elections with their aggregate corporate wealth would place a heavy thumb on the scales of democracy. If a certain industry didn't like the way a senator voted on environmental regulations, for example, there would be nothing to stop that industry from dumping $20 million into the campaign of that senator's opponent.
Opponents of the ban argue that it violates the freedom of speech. But corporate executives are still free to "speak" for their company and for themselves by donating to candidates. Political action committees representing various industries are still free to make contributions.
These limitations have allowed for a playing field that is more or less level. Allowing massive corporate profits onto the field would change the game into something unrecognizable.
"Whatever happened to 'one person, one vote,'?" said Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.), who favors keeping the ban on corporate donations.
Nothing in the state of play of elections has changed so dramatically in recent years to warrant the Supreme Court's intervention. In 1990, the court upheld the prohibitions on corporate donations. Just two years ago, the court extended the ban to any communications that advocate for or against a candidate.
What's changed is the Supreme Court's makeup. Relative newcomers Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, seem hostile toward campaign finance law.
Reversing the ban on corporate donations would be just the kind of lawmaking from the bench that conservatives decry. And it would lift a restriction that makes as much sense today as it did 100 years ago.
