A discussion took place this past Thursday in the Student Center to address the controversy over the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission.
Dr. Howard Bunsis, professor of accounting at Eastern Michigan University, led the discussion entitled “Citizen’s United: The Death of Representative Government?”
Overruling precedent and effectively nullifying an important part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the 5-t0-4 decision decreed the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
Seeking to inform the audience of the history of campaign finance rather than spend too much time on the particulars of the case, Bunsis ran through history dating all the way back to President Abraham Lincoln. “Lincoln went broke financing one of his campaigns,” Bunsis said. “Can you believe that?
“You cannot understand Citizen’s United without understanding the cases that came before it.”
U.S. v. Newberry was the first case brought to the court regarding campaign finance. The suit was brought up in 1921 by Henry Ford, who asserted he lost his primary campaign due to the corporate money flowing against him. Asking the attorney general to prosecute based on existing campaigning laws such as the Tillman Act, Ford’s case went forward to the Supreme Court. The court ruled against Ford.
The ruling in U.S. v. Newberry was the first of many cases that would slowly chip away at the legal veil that sought to keep money out of politics.
“Money is the mother’s milk of politics,” Bunsis said, while quoting a famous quip by politician Jesse M. Unruh.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,” reads part of the First Amendment, a point that has been the rationale for many instances in tearing down campaign finance laws.
“The right of free speech, this has been interpreted as money is a form of free speech,” Bunsis said.
Many are distressed not only over the transfer of human rights unto corporations, but that the recent ruling allows the names of corporate donors to be anonymous instead of disclosed. Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen have sought to remedy this problem by sponsoring the DISCLOSE Act, which would subject corporations, unions and other nonprofit groups that engage in political activity to significant new disclosure rules.
Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis supported this kind of openness and transparency and is widely known for his quote, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Brandeis point is one that Bunsis reiterated throughout the presentation.
As they stand, current campaign finance laws allow for individuals to contribute up to $2,400 a candidate in a federal election, $30,400 a year to a national party committee and $10,000 a year to state and local party committees.
However, Bunsis pointed out through the presentation there are ways around these limits, such as funneling money through political action committees and other loopholes.
Politicians spent a staggering $4.2 billion on campaign TV ads in the 2010 election cycle, the most spent in any election.
