Those of us in the “democracy business” have been heartened in recent years by the increased numbers of young, low-income, and minority citizens who are registering and voting for the first time, or for the first time in a long time. But the Supreme Court may have dealt a blow to the upswing in participation by these groups when it issued its opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
As has been widely reported, the Court overturned a century’s worth of precedent and has now allowed corporations free rein in election spending. How much this will change things we really don’t know. We do know, however, that voter apathy is often the result of a mentality best expressed by “How can my one vote make a difference?” The idea of unlimited millions of dollars from corporate coffers “invested” in swinging an election is daunting to even the most sophisticated voter. It’s easy to understand how any voter, much less a new voter, could conclude that he or she has no chance to make a difference in the face of all those slick corporate ads.
Yesterday, the Senate Rules Committee held an aptly titled hearing “Corporate America vs. The Voter.” The committee heard testimony from a bipartisan witness list of advocates and academics. But, the senators who showed up had a lot to say too. The words used by most of them to describe the Citizens United decision were dramatic; “corrosive to our democracy,” “tragic error,” “catastrophic,” and “disastrous.” What was the reason for the grave language? Opening the floodgates of corporate contributions exacerbates an already troubling phenomenon in our country: money buys access. It stands to reason that those who contribute the most have the most influence, and those who would threaten to support a politician’s opponent unless he votes their way may well determine his vote.
Senator Bennett (R-UT) correctly pointed out that the candidate with the most money doesn’t always win the election, and he’s right. The recent governor’s race in New Jersey, in which the incumbent governor and former Goldman Sachs executive outspent his opponent by 2-1 and lost, certainly proved that. But, the threat of retaliation from a corporation that doesn’t like a candidate’s position on global warming, or health insurance reform, or banking regulation might have the predictable effect of making even the most principled public official think twice about taking that courageous vote. And that would have the predictable effect of turning off even the most idealistic voter, who might reasonably conclude–whether it turns out to be true or not–that his vote won’t make a difference.
Unfortunately, the Citizens United decision was, rightly or wrongly, based on the First Amendment to the Constitution. So, only a constitutional amendment would undo the damage entirely—unless, of course, a later court were to reverse this decision, just as this court reversed 100 years of precedent. Congress is just beginning to consider measures short of a constitutional amendment to ameliorate some of its far-reaching implications: legislation to prohibit U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations from participating in elections, for example, or requiring shareholder approval of corporate campaign contributions. But perhaps we have not yet begun to appreciate the most serious impact of Citizens United: the cost to our democracy when the voters believe that the corporations own the elections, and their participation doesn’t matter anymore.