In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court authorized unlimited political spending by corporations in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The result has been a green light to super PAC spending, much of which remains anonymous.
The consequences of the court decision and political action committee influence are profound at all levels of our government, even down to state elections. Ultimately the fallout has effects even on our local city government here in Bangor.
Donated money influences elections and, unfortunately, huge amounts can have huge influence. Thus big money, not big ideas may dominate our political dialogue. Recognizing this, we have had legislation which has attempted to limit these corrosive effects.
The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 was but the latest attempt to restrain the political money trail. Among its other provisions, it stipulated that the public must have access to the names of those donating to legislative campaigns. Understanding our candidates’ sources of financial support is important to understand the candidates themselves as well as the agendas they are influenced to support.
In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall described corporations as “invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law” (Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward). They cannot vote, have limited liability and their ultimate purpose is to return a profit to their shareholders. The Supreme Court has endowed these artificial creatures with a unique ability to influence our society in secret.
Citizens United has opened the floodgates to hidden money in elections. It ruled that corporations and unions are equivalent to people under the First Amendment, entitled to the same rights of free speech as individuals. The court defined the ability to spend money without limit in support of a candidate as a form of free speech. PACs must report donors every three months but otherwise can spend as they wish.
More recently, wealthy groups have formed so-called social welfare organizations which can give unlimited amounts of money but do not have to disclose their donors. There are now loopholes in the loopholes of our mangled campaign finance laws.
Here in Bangor, our political process had maintained remarkable integrity and even the perception of outside influence is rare. This has changed with Citizens United. In the two weeks before the 2010 election, Karl Rove’s super PAC from Virginia spent $400,000 to unseat five Maine state senators. The advertisements sponsored by this group of Virginians profoundly affected the votes of the people of Maine — and Bangor.
The super PAC was not required to reveal its identity until well after the election. Influence of our elections by faceless people-from-away is not the Maine way.
Much of the American economy flows through corporations, which have enormous amount of cash available to spend. Unfortunately, the decisions of where and how to spend and the agendas those funds support are made by those few people who control corporate policy. Though many Mainers are part owners of some of these corporations, either by owning a few stocks or through a retirement account invested in mutual funds, it is an illusion to suggest that we control the agenda financed by these PACs.
In Maine, we have witnessed the corrosive effect of this PAC spending. The negative approach this funding supports does little to enlighten the debate and contributes to the polarization that has paralyzed our government and led to the recent early retirement of one of our star senators. Our democracy will not work if we as citizens come to believe that laws and lawmakers can be bought and sold.
The negative effects of PAC influence can be seen even locally. Fiscal decisions in Augusta in 2011 have kicked the can down the road forcing Bangor — and other municipalities — to consider cuts to education, general assistance, health care and other programs. We must either raise the mill rate or cut essential services — and not only for the needy.
It is easy to complain, but can we change this? There is a means, but it requires us to start the process. On Monday evening, March 12, the Bangor City Council will discuss placing a resolve on the agenda asking our congressional delegation to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will restrict the ability of corporations and other groups to give unlimited covert money to influence the outcome of elections. Other cities have passed similar resolves.
A simple truth lies at the heart of the resolve: Our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Corporations are not people.
Daniel Cassidy is a physician who lives in Bangor.
Corporations are people. The CEO is a person, the janitor cleaning the toilets is a person. The secretary is a person. The director of engineering is a person. Money donated to PAC come from them and it is not tax deductible. How do you think the corporation writes a check? That would be the finance department and they are humans too.
It is true that people work for corporations. But it is not true that a corporate entity is a person. It is profits that pay for these contributions and lobbyists. Profits garnered in part from tax breaks, subsidies, public assistance wages, etc. I do not think they give employees a vote on what they support. They support whomever will ensure bigger profits. Sure probably the Board of Directors composed of people decide how and where the money should be spent but it is not their money they are spending. It is the corporations money. I am a person, Walmart is not.
Then after delivering 60 or 80 mill in campaign money they can then call in favors to remove laws enabling them to do things like, oh i dunno let bankers invest our social security and 401k’s and loose it then go to court, and say things like my hands are clean i broke no laws.Wonder how many trillion’s of dollars they managed to steal from honest American’s that way sitting in some guys off shore bank account.
So you think PAC money is good for American elections?
I wonder how different this Republican primary would be without super PACs propping up certain candidates.
I wonder how different it would be if people turned off the tv while these ads are airing. I cannot believe given all the press about big money influencing elections that anyone, anywhere believes that anything said in these ads has any merit at all.
Hooray for whomever put that on the agenda. I hope Bangor joins the communities that have already made this resolution.
Just to be clear, I never mentioned that PAC was good or bad, all I said was corporations are made of people and the corporation cannot write a check to PAC without it first being approved by people. Lets not twist facts to fit the agenda. Personally there is no candidate that I could vote for, whether communist, republucan, democrat, socialist, green tea bagger, federal labor, whether they are supported by PAC or by Roger Putin, if they smoked grass or go to church every day. But I will vote for someone because you can always write in a candidate not on the ballot. I think I will vote for Kayak O’momma.
You are correct, it takes people to initiate the check, however “people” are limited to $2500 donations. If corporations are people then they too should be subject to the same limit.
So, as I read between the lines, this author is saying we need to stop all those conservative organizations from spending money to get their candidates elected. Obviously, the only way they got people to vote was by spending outlandish amounts of money and deceiving the voters.
Outlaw PACS. One person, one act of free speech. They can start by outlawing AIPAC.
Most corporations are owned by the public. Shareholders may be Republicans, Democrats. Independents or anything else and the same is true for employees. Shareholders are finally beginning to demand that all corporate political contributions are fully disclosed and employees should demand the same. No one wants to work for a company who’s CEO likes to fund his or her pet candidates with undisclosed corporate donations. Corporate earnings are owned by shareholders and generated by the total workforce, not just the CEO.