Columnist Jamala Rogers
While the country is focused on media headlines like “Finger Bitten off at Health Care Rally,” the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear an obscure campaign finance case that could totally change the way elections are financed.
When the High Court returns from its summer break, legal briefs for Citizens United v. FEC await the review of the justices. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Citizens United who attempted to run Hillary: The Movie during the 2008 presidential election.
The anti-Hillary movie was slated to be on cable’s video-on-demand line up until the Federal Elections Commission demanded to know the corporate sponsors. Law requires such disclosure if such advertising and showings occur during election season. Citizens United, a conservation research group, refused to supply them and filed a lawsuit which has gone all the way up the legal chain.
Let me remind you of the kind of money involved in the last presidential election. The Center for Responsive Politics reported that before a single vote was cast, the presidential candidates had raised and spent more money than any of the seven previous presidential elections.
We should have expected the red flags to go up and the campaign finance reformers to shift into third gear after this historic election cycle. ver $5 billion was spent by candidates, political parties and other groups on congressional and presidential races. Obama and McCain each spent over $1 billion as they sparred over who would take the White House.
By the turn of the 20th century, it was clear that the burgeoning finance capitalists were itching to use their wealth to influence the government for their own purposes. An outright ban on corporate donations to federal candidates passed in 1907. Some 40 years later, it was updated to include corporate expenditures that may be used to influence federal campaigns. Since then, and with acceleration in the last 20 years, the laws have been chipped, sliced and outright ignored in order for the rich and powerful to gain favor and influence.
There certainly have been legal attempts to change the rules of the game, such as the 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case and 2003 McConnell v. FEC. While the High Court upheld the law in those cases, the current U.S. Supreme Courts will re-think these previous rulings. Most campaign finance reform advocates predict a much different outcome this time around. The corporate crowd would love for anything like the McCain-Feingold Act to be ruled unconstitutional.
I am a firm believer that there must be campaign finance reform. At every turn, powerful people have been resourceful in circumventing the electioneering laws such as “bundling,” creating 527s, etc. We must find ways to keep this kind of greedy influence out of elections and out of the legislative process.
The health care industry has spent $1.2 million every day Congress has been in session this year. We, the People, can’t possibly compete on a financial level with the bottomless pockets of these folks. Thanks to them, we only got lint in our pockets.
What we do have is a vote, a mouth, hands and feet. We must raise this issue up to the legal microscope and make our voices heard in the public debate. There is a lot at stake if the floodgates are opened for corporate America to blatantly and legally control lawmakers. We must get ready for the challenge or be prepared to bow down to the bronze bull of Wall Street.